Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.35 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cargill Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 15 November, 2019
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore, relied upon these amendments and,
tracing their history, held that the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be
treated to be an order of assessment. That is how it referred to the Division Bench
Judgment of the High Court at Delhi and explained the legal position. There was thus
no assessment under Section 143(1)(a) and therefore, the question of change of
opinion did not arise. A reference to Section 147 therefore, was made in the context
of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess
income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment
year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this
judgment of the High Court had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench
deciding the Continental Warehousing Corpn. and All Cargo Global Logistics (supra),
there would not have been any difference.
Cit vs Anil Kumar Bhatia on 7 August, 2012
The Id. CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 82 CCH 113 (Del) wherein it has been
held that, even if an assessment order is passed u/s.143(1)/143(3) the AO is
empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income taking note of
the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during search.
Acit, Cc-Ii, Ludhiana vs M/S Jai Bhole Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., ... on 7 September, 2018
i) Jai Steel (India) vs. ACIT [2013] 88 DTR 1 (Raj.)
ii) Marigold Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.2666 & 2667/Del/2013
iii) AB Sudarsanam vs. ACIT ITA No. 1694 & 1695/Mds/2013
iv) MGF Automobiles Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA No. 4212 & 4213/Mds/2014
7 ITA 537 to 539 & 580 to 583/Chny/2018
& ITA 3053/Chny/2017
v) Gurinder Singh Bawa vs. DCIT ITA Nos.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Kabul Chawla on 29 March, 2016
19. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, we find that the
assessee was subjected to search action on 11.05.2012. The assessee
had already filed return of income on 27.11.2011. However, the time limit
to issue notice u/s 143(2) for this year had not expired and Ld. AO could
have issued said notice by 30.09.2012. Therefore, it is not a case of
concluded assessment. Rather Ld. AO was well within his right to make
any addition after examination of assessee's books of account. The legal
proposition laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla
(supra) also supports this view. No infirmity has been shown to us in the
jurisdiction acquired by Ld. AO. Therefore, the legal grounds urged by the
assessee stand dismissed. This Additional ground has been raised by the
assessee in AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 also and the same stand dismissed
for both these years also on the same reasoning.
S. A. Builders Ltd. .. Petitioner vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ... on 14 December, 2006
24. Regarding interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii), Ld. AR, inter-alia
submitted that the funds were given to associated entities for business
purposes. It was also submitted that the assessee had own funds also
and mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on
the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities
& Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1).
Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its
stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for
fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground
stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for
statistical purposes.