Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)
Wig Investments , New Delhi vs Assessee cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L. Alagusundaram Chettiar on 6 October, 1976

Similarly, by stating the facts in the case of Alagusundaram (supra), the Ld AR for the assessee argued that the above case is also distinguishable on facts. It was further submitted by the Ld AR for the assessee that for subsequent assessment year the contention of the assessee has been accepted by the Department. It was, therefore, submitted by him that the Ld CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata vs Mukundray K. Shah on 10 April, 2007

9 ITA No1779/Del/11 "7.6. In view of the above facts, it is obvious that the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 08.12.2008 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue because the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, accruing to the assessee, by way of payment received as partners' capital contributions from the two partner companies, which are substantially controlled by Sh. Pradeep Wig (as individual and as Karta of HUF) and his wife Smt. Neera Wig, who in turn are also majority stake holders in the assessee firm as partners, has not been brought to tax by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, considering the law laid down in judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukundray K. Shah [2007J 290 ITR 433 (SC), as discussed above, the assessment order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 8.12.2008 is set aside with the directions to the assessing officer to frame the assessment afresh as per the correct provisions of law and after taking into account the applicability of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 290 ITR 433.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 91 - Full Document
1   2 Next