Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer, Calcutta vs M/S. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. ... on 29 March, 1995
In case of Income Tax Officer vs Selected Dalurband
Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the assessment was reopened
on the basis of the information contained in letter from
Chief Mining Officer that the colliery of the assessee had
been inspected and there had been under reporting of
coal raised. Upholding the validity of re-opening of
assessment, the Supreme Court held and observed as
under:
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
In other
words, at the initiation stage, what is required is reason
to believe, but not the established fact of escapement of
income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question
is whether there was relevant material on which a
reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief.
Whether the materials would conclusively prove the
escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so
because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer
is within the realm of subjective satisfaction (see ITO v.
Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1996 (217) ITR 597
(SC)] ; Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [ 1999 (236) ITR
34 (SC)].
Central Provinces Manganese Ore. Co. ... vs I.T.O Nagpur on 20 August, 1991
In case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd.
vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagpur (supra) the Supreme
Court noted that in case of the assessee which had an
office in London, this Customs authority had come to
know that the assessee had declared very low price in
respect of the consignment of Manganese exported by
them out of India. After due inquiries and investigations,
the Customs authorities found that the assessee was
systematically under-voicing the value of Manganese as
compared with the prevailing market price. The Income
Tax Officer on coming to know about the proceedings
before the Customs Collector in this respect issued
notice for reopening of the assessment. In the reasons
Page 14 of 21
HC-NIC Page 14 of 21 Created On Sat Aug 06 06:03:16 IST 2016
C/SCA/3249/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
that the Assessing Officer relied on the facts as found by
the Customs Authorities that the assessee had under-
voiced goods during export. Under such circumstances,
upholding the validity of the notice for reopening, the
Supreme Court held and observed as under:
Income Tax Officer, Jodhpur vs Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr on 22 January, 1997
In case of Income Tax Officer vs Purushottam Das
Bangur (supra) after completion of assessment in case of
the assessee, the Assessing Officer received letter from
Directorate of Investigation giving detailed particulars
collected from Bombay Stock Exchange which revealed
earning of share and price of share increased during
period in question and quotation appearing at Calcutta
Stock Exchange was as a result of manipulated
transaction. On the basis of such information, the
Assessing Officer issued notice for reopening of the
assessment. The question, therefore, arose whether the
information contained in the letter of Directorate of
Investigation could be said to be definite information and
the Assessing Officer could act upon such information for
taking action under Section 147(b) of the Act. In such
background, the Supreme Court observed as under:
Agr Investment Ltd. vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. on 7 January, 2011
In case of AGR Investment Ltd. vs. Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (supra), a Division
Bench of Delhi High Court considered the validity of
reopening of assessment where the notice was based on
information received from Directorate of investigation
that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus
accommodation entries. The Court while upholding the
validity of reopening observed that sufficiency of reason
cannot be considered in a writ petition. It was observed
as under:
Futura Ceramics Pvt.Limited vs State Of Gujarat Thro on 23 August, 2013
16. Thus, the decision in case of Futura Ceramics Pvt.
Ltd. And anr vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary and
ors(supra) was rendered in an entirely different
background and had no direct application to the question
whether on the basis of information supplied by the
Excise Department to the Assessing Officer of
suppression of valuation of goods or clandestine removal
of goods for evading excise duty, notice for re-opening of
the assessment could have been issued."