Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.85 seconds)The Advocates Act, 1961
Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976
(i) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)
4.8. In the above quoted cases, mainly it was held that the assessee
must disclose all primary facts fully and truly. The words 'omission or
failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his
assessment for the year, postulate a duty on every assessee to
15
ITA No. 716 & 717 and CO No. 31 & 32/JP/2016
M/s. Supreme Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Alwar.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007
4.6. However, the case laws relied upon by the appellant does not
have applicability to the facts of the present case. The function of the
Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the
public exchequer with an in-built idea of fairness to taxpayer (Asst. CIT
v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). In
determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings is
valid, the court has only to see whether there is prima facie some
material on the basis of which the Department opened the case.
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shyam Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit 2(3), Mumbai on 7 July, 2017
- 353 ITR 158 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the issue of
notice u/s 148 as there was alleged suppression of stock on the part of
the assessee. Also in the case of Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd. vs. ACIT -
353 ITR 0131, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the initiation of
reassessment proceedings on the ground of failure on the part of
assessee to disclose facts necessary for assessment.
4.10. Thus, in view of these facts, I hold that AO had rightly initiated
the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the IT Act."
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
The
sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be
considered at this stage as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), Great Arts
(P) Ltd. v. ITO (2002) 257 ITR 639 (Delhni).
Zohar Siraj Lokhandwala vs M.G. Kamat And Others on 4 March, 1994
(a) Zohar Siraj Lokhandwala v. M.G. Kamat (1994) 210 ITR 956
(Bom) "Assessee primarily must disclose particular portions of
documents which are material."
Great Arts (P) Ltd. vs Ito on 24 April, 2002
The
sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be
considered at this stage as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), Great Arts
(P) Ltd. v. ITO (2002) 257 ITR 639 (Delhni).
1