Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)Section 158BC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smc Share Brokers Ltd. on 29 August, 2006
The revenue carried the matter on appeal before the Delhi High Court in the case
of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Delhi) and
on going through the judgment we find that the correctness of the finding rendered by
the Tribunal with regard to the Office note dated 29.8.2002 was not put to challenge by
the revenue before the Delhi High Court.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Xiii vs Radhey Shyam Bansal on 30 May, 2011
Therefore, for all purposes the decision of the
learned Tribunal in SMC Share Brokers Ltd. qua the effect of the Office note dated
29.8.2002 stands affirmed as on date and, therefore, the revenue cannot rely upon the
said Office note to mean satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the
searched person/s. This aspect was taken note of by the Delhi High Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal, (2011) 337 ITR 217 (Delhi), wherein
the Hon'ble Division Bench held that as the finding of the Tribunal in the case of SMC
Share Brokers Ltd. has gone unchallenged, reliance cannot be placed on the Office note
dated August 29, 2002 to come to a conclusion that there was recording of satisfaction.
The revenue's contention before the learned Tribunal as well as before us is that the
Office note dated 29.8.2002 should be regarded as a satisfaction note. The note has a
prefix stating Office note (for Departmental use only). On carefully going through the
note we find that there is no recording of satisfaction done by the concerned officer,
namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Circle-III, New Delhi as
there is reference to certain efforts which have been taken by the Investigating wing.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana on 12 March, 2014
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears (supra) after laying down the
above legal position did not examine the individual cases before it and one such matter
which was in the bunch of appeals before the Supreme Court is in the case of Radhey
Shyam Bansal and other connected matters and the matters were remanded back to the
Delhi High Court for consideration of the matter on the legal principles set out in
Calcutta Knitwears.
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Xiii vs Manoj Bansal on 7 January, 2015
Upon such remand the High Court of Delhi in the case of The
Commissioner of Income Tax XIII Vs. Manoj Bansal, ITA 578/2008, decided on 07.01.2015
considered the matter and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
Jm Financial Limited (Formerly Known As ... vs Dcit -4(3), Mumbai on 4 October, 2019
(D) For that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in taking into consideration an alleged Office
note allegedly dated August 29, 2002 produced by the Departmental Representative for the first
time before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal and to which no reference was made
by any revenue authority in any previous record/proceedings in the respondent's case.
(E) For that further and in any event and without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Tribunal failed
to consider that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v
DCIT in IT(SS) A No. 250/Delhi/2005 by its order dated January 27, 2006 held and found that
the said alleged Office note allegedly dated August 29, 2002 was antedated and revenue's appeal
against the said order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in CIT v SMC Share Brokers Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Delhi)."
Smc Share Brokers Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 January, 2006
The assessee places reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in
the case of SMC Share Brokers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (2007) 109 TTJ
700 (Delhi). Though the learned Tribunal in the impugned order has taken note of the
decision, it has not touched upon the issue regarding limitation, more particularly, the
correctness of the stand taken by the revenue that there is an Office note generated at
the instance of the Assessing Officer of the searched person at Delhi dated 29.8.2002. It
is not in dispute that the said Office note was produced for the first time before the
learned Tribunal, which had weighed in the mind of the Tribunal to decide against the
assessee. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in SMC Share Brokers Ltd. considered the
Office note dated 29.8.2002 and its effect and efficacy qua the stand taken by the
assessee that the Office note was ante-dated. The learned Tribunal has elaborately
considered the effect of the said Office note dated 29.8.2002 and held that on or before
29.8.2002 the Assessing Officer of M/s. Friends Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. and that of Sri Monoj
Agarwal (searched person) did not record any satisfaction and the said note dated
5
2025:CHC-OS:157-DB
29.8.2002 is, therefore, not to be taken for recording satisfaction required under Section
158BC/158BD of the Act.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Bharat Bhushan Jain Charitable Trust on 18 December, 2019
That apart, the Assessing Officer of the assessee before us had issued notice
under Section 158BD only on 28.11.2003 and going by these dates it can be safely held
that the entire proceedings are inordinately delayed and barred by limitation by
applying the legal principle set out in the above decision.
1