Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Saipem Aban Drilling Co. Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 January, 2012 cites

Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010

It is clearly mentioned therein that the Assessing Officer can be presumed to have applied his mind and formed an opinion, as per Section 114(e) of Evidence Act, even where no specific reference to the point of enquiry was there in the assessment order. It is also observed by their Lordships that no reason was necessary to specify why a particular amount was allowed. Assessing Officer having 11 I.T.A. No. 2151/Mds/10 himself set out the computation u/s.115JB in his assessment order, and assessee having given break-up of carried forward losses/depreciation, along with its return, and that too along with an audit report, in our opinion, application of mind by the Assessing Officer was pregnant. Just because there was no discussion on such computation in the body of assessment order, we cannot come to a conclusion that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Various decisions relied on by the learned D.R. in this regard pale into insignificance in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), which affirmed the Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the same case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1696 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 Next