Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (2.80 seconds)Section 292BB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-08 vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. on 14 October, 2015
As far as this Court is concerned, the decision in Director of
Income Tax v. Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunications (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del) and the recent decision in
Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) hold likewise.
Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 February, 1992
16. As regards the objection of the Revenue to the ITAT permitting the
Assessee to raise the point concerning non-issuance of notice under Section
143(2) of the Act for the first time in the appeal before the ITAT, the Court
is of the considered view that in view of the settled legal position that the
requirement of issuance of such notice is a jurisdictional one, it does go to
the root of the matter as far as the validity of the reassessment proceedings
under Section 147/148 of the Act is concerned. It raises a question of law as
far as the present cases are concerned since it is not in dispute that prior to
finalisation of the reassessment orders, notice under Section 143(2) of the
Act was not issued by the AO to the Assessee. With there being no fresh
ITA No. 578 of 2015 & connected matters Page 11 of 15
evidence or disputed facts sought to be brought on record, and the issue
being purely one of law, the ITAT was not in error in permitting the
Assessee to raise such a point before it. This finds support in the decision of
the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Income Tax (supra) and the decision of this Court in Gedore Tools (P)
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jodhan Real Estate Development Co. P. ... on 4 October, 2002
Manish Prakash Gupta vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 7 January, 2010
The decision of the Allahabad
High Court in Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax
(supra) is also to the same effect.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajeev Grinding Mills on 8 April, 2003
22. The decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income
Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (supra) and Commissioner of Income-tax-II,
Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.)
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Lucknow vs M/S Salarpur Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. ... on 19 August, 2014
22. The decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income
Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (supra) and Commissioner of Income-tax-II,
Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.)
M/S.Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs The Income Tax Officer on 17 July, 2012
In this context reference may be made to the decision of the Madras
High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer
(supra) where again the Assessee did not file a return pursuant to Section
148 of the Act. The AO then issued a notice to it under Section 142(1) of the
Act. The Assessee thereafter appeared before the AO and stated that the
original return filed should be treated as the return filed in response to the
notice under Section 148 of the Act. In those circumstances, the High Court
observed that if there was some explanation that was required to be offered
by the Assessee, notwithstanding the above submission made by it, the AO
ought to have issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Madras
High Court observed: