Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.23 seconds)
M/S. Ferro Concrete Con. India Pvt. ... vs The Dcit Circle-1(1), Indore on 13 October, 2021 cites

Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976

7,12,00,000/- was given to M/s Ferro Concrete Const. (I) Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Keti Constructions Ltd.". Thus, these words show that AO was not having "reason to believe", rather he has reopened the case on mere "suspicion". This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 : (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) : TC51R.598 wherein Lakhmani Mewal Das vs. ITO (1975) 99 ITR 296 (Cal)(FB) : TC51R.606 was affirmed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 885 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Lakhmani Mewal Das vs Income-Tax Officer, 'I' Ward And Ors. on 13 January, 1972

7,12,00,000/- was given to M/s Ferro Concrete Const. (I) Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Keti Constructions Ltd.". Thus, these words show that AO was not having "reason to believe", rather he has reopened the case on mere "suspicion". This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 : (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) : TC51R.598 wherein Lakhmani Mewal Das vs. ITO (1975) 99 ITR 296 (Cal)(FB) : TC51R.606 was affirmed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 23 - A K Mukherjea - Full Document

Ganga Saran And Sons Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta vs Income Tax Officer & Ors on 23 April, 1981

13. From above, we are of the view that the main component of reasons should be AO having reason to believe. The words "has reason to believe" are stronger than the words "is satisfied". The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. Therefore, the Court can examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under section 147(a). If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Assessing Officer could not have reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and such escapement was by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid. This ratio has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 112 : (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) : TC51R.639 reversing the decision of 16 Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 305 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. ... vs Income Tax Officer on 18 February, 2016

means that not only there is a reason for the belief but also that the belief is entertained or formed. Having reason to believe means that there is a reason coupled with the belief. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer& Ors., (2016) 95 CCH 046 (Del), observed that reasons recorded for reopening assessment should state that Assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment in returns as originally filed and reasons recorded should provide live link to formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. Thus where reasons recorded by AO "lack clarity and it was practically impossible to derive meaning out of it and was incapable of being understood", reassessment notice was liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next