Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
4.2 Before us, the Ld. DR, could not controvert the finding of the
Ld. CIT(A) that reopening of the assessment was based on mere
change of opinion on same set of facts which were available
during original assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of
the Act. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT
versus Kelvinator of India reported in 320 ITR 561 held that 'the
assessing officer deemed to have applied his mind if facts are on
record and reopening under section 147 of the act on change of
opinion is not permissible even within 4 years from the end of the
6
assessment year'.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Virgin Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. on 18 February, 2011
The said judgement of the
Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations
has been followed by the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of
Piyush C Mehta Vs. ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 27, by the ITAT,
Cuttack, in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pradhan Vs. ACIT
(2012) 14 ITR (Trib.)
Commr.Of Income Tax vs M/S Alom Extructions Limited on 25 November, 2009
In this connection the
Hon'ble High Court placed reliance on the judgements of
the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677, and in the case of CIT Vs. Alom
Extrusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306, wherein it was held
7
that an amendment which is curative in nature is
retrospective in operation.
Piyush B.Acharya, Mehsana vs Acit.,Cent.Circle-1(1),, Ahmedabad on 15 March, 2017
The said judgement of the
Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations
has been followed by the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of
Piyush C Mehta Vs. ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 27, by the ITAT,
Cuttack, in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pradhan Vs. ACIT
(2012) 14 ITR (Trib.)
Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs Acit, Meerut on 27 February, 2018
The said judgement of the
Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations
has been followed by the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of
Piyush C Mehta Vs. ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 27, by the ITAT,
Cuttack, in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pradhan Vs. ACIT
(2012) 14 ITR (Trib.)
Ito, New Delhi vs M/S. Opg Leasing & Finance P. Ltd., Delhi on 25 January, 2016
Moreover the jurisdictional ITAT, vide order no. ITA
3592/Del./2011 dated 22.05.2012 in the case of ITO Vs.
Taru Leading Edge (P) Ltd., has also followed the view
taken by the Calcutta High Court that the amendment to
the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance
Act, 2010, is applicable retrospectively from 01.04.2005.
Indisputably, in the instant case, the appellant has
deposited the tax deducted at source of Rs. 9,99,00,265/-
before the due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of
the Act. In view of the judicial pronouncements, the
appellant deserves to succeed at grounds of appeal nos. 3
and 4 as well."
Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs . Cit (1997) 139 Ctr (Sc) 364, on 28 January, 2014
In this connection the
Hon'ble High Court placed reliance on the judgements of
the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677, and in the case of CIT Vs. Alom
Extrusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306, wherein it was held
7
that an amendment which is curative in nature is
retrospective in operation.