Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.51 seconds)Acit, New Delhi vs M/S Mani Stock Brokers Ltd(Now Mani ... on 12 September, 2019
So, the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court is distinguishable on facts and material as considered
and decided in as much as these cases do not involve reassessment after
processing is done under section 143(1), which is held to be not assessment as
per Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock
Brokers P. Ltd. (supra). So this decision and other related decision, which
followed this decision has no application in this case.
7.8. Therefore, keeping in view of facts, circumstances and material on record
in the light of precedents relied upon and ratio of decision discussed above, it is
held that the Assessing Officer could validly initiate reassessment proceedings
by invoking provisions of section 147.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
7.7 So far as the decision in the case of CIT v. (1) Kelvinator of India Ltd. & (2)
Eicher Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), heavily relied upon by the ld. Counsel for
the assessee, is concerned, it is found that it relates to two appeals before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the first case is that of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
(C.A Nos. 2009-2011 of 2003), which has arisen from the Full Bench judgment of
10 ITA No.337
No.337/Mds/
337/Mds/1
/Mds/10
Hon'ble Delhi High Court as reported in 256 ITR 1 (Delhi [FB] and if that
judgment is looked into, it makes it clear that when a regular order of assessment
is passed in terms of the sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be
raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind and the
assessment year involved in that case is 1987-88 and order of assessment under
section 143(3) came to be passed on 12.11.1989 and subsequently notice under
section 148 came to be issued.
Cit vs Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills on 21 August, 2007
AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that this ORDER be punctually
observed and carried into execution by all concerned."
9.1 In the case of CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills (supra), the head-
notes, etc. are as under:
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Janakiram Mills Ltd on 29 April, 2005
Decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd. [2005]
275 ITR 403 set aside and matter remanded."
Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi vs M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd. on 15 February, 2022
2520 of 2008 too, which is from the judgment
and order dated 22.05.2007 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.A. No. 309 of 2006 as
reported in CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) where assessment year
involved was 1993-94, assessment was earlier completed under section 143(3)
and subsequently notice under section 148 came to be issued.