Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
"18. In the present case the reasons disclose
that the Assessing Officer reached the belief
that there was escapement of income "on going
through the return of income" filed by the
assessee after he accepted the return under
Section 143(1) without scrutiny, and nothing
more. This is nothing but a review of the
earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by
the Assessing Officer, both strongly deprecated
by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator
(supra). The reasons recorded by the Assessing
Officer in the present case do confirm our
apprehension about the harm that a less strict
interpretation of the words "reason to believe"
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007
In this
context, we may again revert back to the decision of the
Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P.
Ltd. (supra), in which it has been highlighted that the
reason to believe does not have to be a final opinion
that the additions would certainly be made. It was
observed that whether the materials would conclusively
prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage.
This is so because the formation of belief by the
Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective
satisfaction.
Section 156 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi, New ... vs Usha International Limited on 21 September, 2012
Later on, Delhi High Court
Full Bench rendered its decision in case of Commissioner
of Income Tax Vs. Usha International Ltd., reported in 348
ITR, page No.485 (Delhi) (Full Bench).
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
Reliance in this respect was made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woollen
Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO, reported in 236 ITR, page No. 34. We
have already reproduced para-16 of the judgment in which
these aspects are highlighted.
Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 October, 2009
In case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 350 ITR,
page No.266, the Division Bench of this Court in fact
rejected the contention of the assessees that for
reopening of assessment, which was previously framed
after scrutiny where notice is issued within four years
from the end of relevant assessment year, the material to
enable the Assessing Officer to form the belief that
income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, must be
alien to the record. The Court observed as under:-