Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)
M/S Ascent Constructions Private ... vs State Of U.P. & Others on 19 May, 2014 cites

Income-Tax Officer, "I" Ward And Ors. vs Mahadeo Lal Tulsyan on 25 May, 1977

17. We are not impressed by the argument that the instant case is a case of change of opinion. The change of opinion necessarily postulates that the assessing authority had an occasion to consider the material earlier, and on the same set of facts another opinion was sought to be formed. The question of change of opinion cannot arise where there has been no previous proceeding of assessment in respect of a turnover in dispute. As pointed out by the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Officer v. Mahadev Lal Tulayan, (1978) 111 ITR 25, a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer contemplated, formation of two different opinions or to make two different inferences at two stages on the same set of primery facts.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 27 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs A. Raman & Company on 18 July, 1967

Although the above decision was given with reference to Section 147 (b) of the Income Tax Act, but so far the issue with which we are concerned, the said Section, as already noted, is in pari materia with Section 21 of the Act. In finding out the meaning of the expression "escaped assessment" or "has been under assessed" envisaged by Section 21 of the Act, we see no reason why the said expressions should bear a more limited meaning than that it bears under Section 147 (b) of the Income Tax Act. The object of the two sections under the two statutes is to gather the revenue which has improperly escaped and both the Acts deals with taxing statues.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 459 - J C Shah - Full Document

Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) vs M.M. Krishnamurthy Chetty[Overruled] on 5 November, 1996

16. Thus, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that the scheme was subject to such direction as the State Government may from time to time issue in that behalf, and the petitioner's work contract being beyond the scope of the scheme, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) accepting the compounding application is liable to be ignored has no substance. Moreover, it could not be disputed by him that the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) is a higher officer than the Trade Tax Officer who issued the impugned notice and the order dated 7th February, 1994 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 7-D of the Act. In any administration it is essential for a junior officer to obey and follow and give due weight to an order which has been validly passed by an officer who is higher in rank, otherwise there would be chaos in the administration. It is not open to an officer who is junior in rank to give a complete go bye to such an order passed by his superior. The order passed by the superior unless varied, modified or vacated, is an order binding on a junior officer and he has to obey it. The Apex Court in the case of Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) v. M.M. Krishnamurty Chatty, 1998 (9) S.C.C. 138, has held that it is well settled that even order which may not be strictly legal become final and are binding between the parties if they are not challenged before the superior Court. This may instantly cause some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is to take appropriate steps within the frame work of the State. It may be recalled here that an attempt was made by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) to rectify the order dated 7th February, 1994 by order dated 6th February, 1997. The order dated 6th February, 1997 has been quashed by this Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 Next