Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 1 June, 1981
20. In view of the above conclusion, I do not find any valid ground to entertain the petitioner's prayer for quashing of the notice at the threshold. This view of mine is amply supported by the decision of the Division Bench in CIT v. Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 446. In that case, the court rejected the challenge to the notice issued under Section 147(a) and observed as under :
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997
13. If the case in hand is examined in the light of the above analysis of the two sections and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any difficulty in rejecting the petitioner's plea that respondent No. 2 did not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment. A careful scrutiny of the averments contained in the pleadings of the parties and the order of assessment passed by respondent No. 2, the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Amritsar Range, Amritsar, order dated September 4, 1982, passed by the Tribunal, impugned notice annexure P-1 and annexures R1/1 and R2/2 shows that in the statement of closing stock filed with the return, the petitioner had disclosed the total value of different varieties of paddy at Rs. 5,87,892. Respondent No. 2 issued notice dated April 20, 1979, to the petitioner under Section 143(3) requiring it to furnish a certificate regarding stock pledged/hypothecated to the bank as on November 30, 1976, and March 31, 1977, for securing overdraft facility. The petitioner did not furnish required information in this behalf. It did not even make a request to the bank till, December 1, 1979, for issuing the necessary certificate. The bank authorities too did not furnish the required information/certificate despite written request made by respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 2275 dated December 14, 1979, and the fact that the Inspector of Income-tax was deputed to personally collect the information. In response to the second letter dated January 16, 1980 sent to the branch manager of the bank he furnished the following information vide letter dated January 21, 1980 :
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
21. The aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench was approved by the Supreme Court in Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 818 with the following observations (page 818) :
Income Tax Officer, Jodhpur vs Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr on 22 January, 1997
In ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur [1997] 224 ITR 362 (SC) ; [1997] 3 SCC 253, their Lordships considered the validity of a notice under Section 147(b). The facts of that the case were that the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72 accepting the assessee's claim that they had suffered long term capital loss on the sale of shares of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills at the price quoted by the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer received a letter from the Deputy Director, Directorate of Inspector (Investigation), Special Cell, New Delhi which, on the basis of the Bombay Stock Exchange Directory stated that the paid-up capital of the company was Rs. 72 lakhs divided into 72,000 shares of Rs. 100 each ; that the book value per equity share rose from Rs. 318.55 for the year ending December 21, 1965 to Rs. 401 for the year ending December 31, 1970 ; that the earning per share rose from Rs. 8.37 per share to Rs. 44 per share during that period and the dividend percentage also rose from two per cent, to ten per cent. for the same period. But, inspite of all these facts, the quotation of the shares on the Calcutta Stock Exchange fell from Rs. 168 per share to Rs. 85 per share during the said period. The Deputy Director further expressed the opinion that the quotations appearing in the Calcutta Stock Exchange were as a result of certain manipulated transactions between the group itself and could not be said to reflect the fair market value of the shares of the company. Consequently, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under Section 147(b) of the Act informing the assessee about the proposed reassessment of its income. The High Court quashed the notice. Allowing the Revenue's appeal, the Supreme Court held as under (headnote of [1997] 3 SCC 253) :
Section 151 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
S. Narayanappa & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 27 September, 1966
In support of his argument, Shri Jain relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 and Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1.