Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.37 seconds)Section 147 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab ... vs Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd on 24 March, 1964
16. It was further claimed and contended by Mr. Sengupta that if the conditions as laid down by the two judgments of the Supreme Court, Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. C1T and CIT v. Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. , have been fulfilled or are required to be fulfilled, they would be questions of fact and such fact, having been made known to the officer concerned by the D.I. (Investigation), New Delhi, he initiated the proceeding and such initiation cannot be stated to be without the due satisfaction of the officer concerned and, as such, no interference in this case, at this stage, should be made and, furthermore, when by the two records as indicated above, the ITO concerned was informed about the applicability of the law as laid down in certain circumstances and on certain facts and that too on the ultimate satisfaction of the said officer. He claimed that when on such facts as mentioned above, the ITO has initiated the concerned proceedings, the same cannot be said to be initiated on a mere change of opinion.
Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab on 9 February, 1965
As such, on a reference, to the date as mentioned above, Dr. Pal claimed that when the decisions as mentioned above laid down the law, viz., what are marked as security deposits could partake the character of trading receipts in the circumstances as disclosed in the above quoted letter dated 4th June, 1976, firstly, on 24th November, 1958, in the case (Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. CIT), which again was clarified and applied later, in the case (CIT v. Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd.) and such determination was dated 24th March, 1964, so the law on the point was settled and declared as the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, if not on 24th November, 1958, at least on 24th March, 1964, and, as such, that the statement of the deponent of the affidavit-in-opposition, who incidentally was the ITO concerned, was not either well aware of the taxability of the concerned security deposits received by the said company or such fact of taxability was brought to his knowledge after the original assessment for the assessment year, would not hold good and such explanation was not a bona fide one and so it must be held and observed that even though the officer concerned was acting on such information as received from the D.I, (Investigation), New Delhi, through the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, it was really a case of acting or initiation of proceeding on change of opinion. It should also be noted that by the subsequent determination, the Supreme Court had applied and restated the law as disclosed by or in the earlier judgment and had not expressed any contrary view and, as such, also, Dr. Pal claimed and contended that such subsequent determination could not also be treated as furnishing any subsequent knowledge to the officer concerned or information to him under Section 147(b) of the said Act.
R.K. Malhotra, Ito, Group Circle Ii(1), ... vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai (Huf) on 11 August, 1977
CED was apparently, not brought to the notice of this court when it heard R.K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai . The opinion of the Board represented its view as a quasi-judicial authority possessing jurisdiction to lay down the law. Although the Board did not enhance the valuation of the securities in the appellate proceeding because of the argument advanced by the appellant, none the less its observations amounted to information as to the law. It was not a case where the Board was functioning as an extra-judicial authority, performing administrative or executive functions, and not competent or authorised to pronounce upon the law.
Section 148 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
13. It was also contended by Dr. Pal, on a reference to the determinations of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT , which has disapproved and overruled the earlier determination on the point by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT , this case would not come under or be covered by the provisions of Section 147 of the said Act, as oversight, inadvertence or mistake of the ITO concerned, would not fall within or come under the said section.
L. Madanlal (Aluminium) P. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 8 September, 1976
17. In this case, when the materials or facts relevant were admittedly and already available in the concerned original assessment proceedings and they were not new facts, which came to the possession of the assessing ITO and the said officer cannot be heard to say in the facts and background as mentioned hereinbefore, that the legal position was not
known to him even though the relevant facts and materials were available. Thus, the initiation as made, cannot be upheld and such initiation must be observed and held to have been made on a mere change of opinion and to be not covered by or under the circumstances as envisaged in Section 147 of the said Act. The ignorance of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, would be no ground or any excuse for the ITO concerned under the provisions of the said Act.
Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs C.I.T., West Bengal-Ii on 10 December, 1975
13. It was also contended by Dr. Pal, on a reference to the determinations of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT , which has disapproved and overruled the earlier determination on the point by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT , this case would not come under or be covered by the provisions of Section 147 of the said Act, as oversight, inadvertence or mistake of the ITO concerned, would not fall within or come under the said section.