Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.93 seconds)
Rochana Agarwal C/O Ved Prakash ... vs Assistatnt Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 28 March, 2022
cites
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Daulatram Rawatmal vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 21 May, 1959
9. Under section 147 of the Act the proceedings for the reassessment can be initiated only if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question whether the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe is not a question of limitation only but is a question of jurisdiction, a vital thing, which can always be investigated by the court in an application under article 226 of the Constitution as held in Daulatram Rawatmal v. ITO, [1960] 38 ITR 301 (Cal); Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO, [1968] 69 ITR 461 (All); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, [1961] 41 ITR 191; C.M. Rajgharia v. ITO, [1975] 98 ITR 486 (Patna) and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO, [1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC)."
Jamna Lal Kabra vs Income-Tax Officer, B Ward, Bareilly, ... on 28 April, 1967
9. Under section 147 of the Act the proceedings for the reassessment can be initiated only if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question whether the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe is not a question of limitation only but is a question of jurisdiction, a vital thing, which can always be investigated by the court in an application under article 226 of the Constitution as held in Daulatram Rawatmal v. ITO, [1960] 38 ITR 301 (Cal); Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO, [1968] 69 ITR 461 (All); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, [1961] 41 ITR 191; C.M. Rajgharia v. ITO, [1975] 98 ITR 486 (Patna) and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO, [1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC)."
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
9. Under section 147 of the Act the proceedings for the reassessment can be initiated only if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question whether the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe is not a question of limitation only but is a question of jurisdiction, a vital thing, which can always be investigated by the court in an application under article 226 of the Constitution as held in Daulatram Rawatmal v. ITO, [1960] 38 ITR 301 (Cal); Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO, [1968] 69 ITR 461 (All); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, [1961] 41 ITR 191; C.M. Rajgharia v. ITO, [1975] 98 ITR 486 (Patna) and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO, [1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC)."
C.M. Rajgharia And Anr. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 23 April, 1974
9. Under section 147 of the Act the proceedings for the reassessment can be initiated only if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question whether the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe is not a question of limitation only but is a question of jurisdiction, a vital thing, which can always be investigated by the court in an application under article 226 of the Constitution as held in Daulatram Rawatmal v. ITO, [1960] 38 ITR 301 (Cal); Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO, [1968] 69 ITR 461 (All); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, [1961] 41 ITR 191; C.M. Rajgharia v. ITO, [1975] 98 ITR 486 (Patna) and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO, [1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC)."
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd vs The Income-Tax Officer, Nagpur on 16 April, 1970
9. Under section 147 of the Act the proceedings for the reassessment can be initiated only if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question whether the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe is not a question of limitation only but is a question of jurisdiction, a vital thing, which can always be investigated by the court in an application under article 226 of the Constitution as held in Daulatram Rawatmal v. ITO, [1960] 38 ITR 301 (Cal); Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO, [1968] 69 ITR 461 (All); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, [1961] 41 ITR 191; C.M. Rajgharia v. ITO, [1975] 98 ITR 486 (Patna) and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO, [1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC)."
M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another vs Income-Tax Officer And Another on 13 July, 1993
26. When we examine the facts of the present case keeping into view the scope of power of judicial review while scrutinizing a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as explained in Raymond woolen Mills Ltd. (1) and (2) and Phool Chand Bajarang Lal (Supra), we find that the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued by the assessing officer after conducting an investigation and going through the income tax return and other related documents of the assessee and after giving reason to believe that the income amounting to Rs. 6,94,540/- has escaped assessment in respect of the assessee. We are satisfied that there is prima facie material available on record before the assessing officer for issuing a notice for reassessment and the notice under Section 148 of the Act. While this Court examines the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the Court does not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not and the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage.
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
13. Again, in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO, (2008) 14 SCC 218, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while examining the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, "we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is a suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage."