Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.49 seconds)
Ram Kumar Tyagi,Ghaziabad vs Ito, Ghaziabad on 13 August, 2025 cites

Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors on 25 November, 2002

30. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this regard, it is seen that the assessee has filed the return of income on 18.02.2015 before the AO and thereafter, no formal request was made for the supply of reasons recorded. Thus, in absence of the same, there is no error in part of the AO in not supplying the copies of the reasons recorded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC) has spelt out the procedure to be adopted for challenging the jurisdiction for re-assessment wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the assessee first has to file the return of income in compliance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereafter, a prayer could be made for the supply of the reasons recorded. However, as observed above, in the instant case, no such prayer was made before the AO therefore, AO was not obliged to supply the reasons recorded. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.5 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1767 - Full Document

Digambar Adhar Patil vs Devram Girdhar Paul (Died) And Amr on 21 February, 1995

10. A mere agreement to divide does not require registration, if there is an actual oral partition. It is well settled that the document though unregistered, can, however, be looked into for the limited purpose of establishing a severance in status, though that severance may ultimately, after the nature of possession held by members of the separate family as co-tenants. Kindly see Digamber Patil vs Devram (AIR 1995 SC 1728)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 62 - Full Document
1   2 Next