Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.33 seconds)

Income Tax Officer, Income ... vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur on 16 October, 1974

The Ld.AR pointed out that, the expression 'reason to believe' occurring in section 147 does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, but the reasons to believe must have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief as held in case of ITO/WTO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur reported in [1974] 97 ITR 239 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 100 - A C Gupta - Full Document

New Skies Satellites B. V , Haryana vs Dcit Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation , ... on 22 April, 2022

32. The Ld.AO met with the objections raised by the assessee by way of independent order dated 27.03.2015 placed at pages 40-42 of paper book. Therefore it cannot be held that the Ld.AO did not follow the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of G.K.N. Driveshaft (supra). For sake of reference, the same is scanned and reproduced herewith.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - G S Pannu - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Pvs Builders & Developers on 24 October, 2016

"5. It is true that Section 158BD states that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132, then the books of accounts, other documents or assets seized shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that the Assessing Officer shall proceed under Section 158BC against such other person and the provisions of these Chapter shall apply accordingly. This provision by itself, in our opinion, is not sufficient to hold that the Assessing Officer, on the facts and in the circumstances, as occurred in the present case, could not have proceeded against the assessee under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. This provision fell for consideration of the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Abhyudaya Builders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 34o ITR Page 12 of 26 ITA No. 256/Bang/2020 310/20 taxmann.com 851 was considering not only these provisions but was examining the same in the light of similar facts, as fall for our consideration in the present case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next