Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.47 seconds)Section 142A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Income-Tax Officer And Ors. vs Kajaria Investment And Properties P. ... on 31 August, 2007
In support of his submissions,
learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Krishan Lal Dua (2005) 277 ITR
477 (P&H), Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v.
Sudhish Kumar, (2005) 276 ITR 563, Calcutta High Court in Income
Tax Officer and others v. Kajaria Investment and Properties P. Ltd.,
(2008) 297 ITR 45 (Cal.)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Core Health Care Ltd on 8 February, 2008
2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that question
No.2 is covered against the revenue in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax v.
Core Health Care Ltd., (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC). Accordingly, we
answer the said question in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue.
Section 55A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Shashi Aggarwal And Ors. on 12 October, 2004
The Allahabad High Court in
Smt. Shashi Agarwal's case (supra) had held that where the Tribunal
had passed the order before the cut off date prescribed under the
proviso to Section 142A of the Act and the appeal under Section 260A
of the Act being maintainable before the High Court only on substantial
question of law, therefore, it could not be said to be continuation of the
assessment proceedings within the meaning of proviso to Section 142A
of the Act. The Assessing Officer, thus, had no power to refer the
matter to the DVO. Similar view has been taken by Delhi and Calcutta
High Courts.
Amiya Bala Paul vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shillong on 7 July, 2003
13. Accordingly, question No.1 referred to above is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Krishan Lal Dua on 7 February, 2005
11. The question regarding the applicability of Section 142A of
the Act was subject matter of consideration before this Court in Krishan
ITR No. 48 of 1994 -7-
Lal Dua's case (supra) wherein the assessment had become final on
31.3.1995 and the same was not liable to reassessment under Section
153A of the Act, it was held that Section 142A of the Act would not be
applicable as the proviso was attracted.