Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.36 seconds)Engineering Analysis Centre Of ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 March, 2021
5.4 The ap pellant has relied on a nu mber of jud icial au th or ities in
suppor t of the con te n tions canvassed by him. In the c ase of Addl.
CIT vs J oginder Singh [1985] repor ted in 151 IT R 92, the Hon'ble
Delhi H ig h Cour t was cons ider ing subs tan tive pen al p ro v is io ns in
17
ITA No.211/GTY/2016 &
ITA No. 8/GTY/2016
Bimal Paul, AYs: 2010-11 & 2011-12
respe ct of concealmen t and o miss ion of tax able inco me. In the case
of Reliance Ju te a nd Indus tr ies Ltd. vs CIT [1 979] repo r ted in 120
IT R 921, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t was se ized of a matter involv in g
se t of f of broug ht f or ward bus iness loss with the bus ine ss inco me of
the curren t year. Ma tters involv ing c o mpu ta tio n of assessable to tal
inco me are subs ta ntive in nature. Additio nally, in this case, the
Hon'ble Apex Cour t held th at it is a cardinal pr inc ip le of tax la w th at
the law to be applied is that in f orce in the assess men t year unless
o ther wise provided expressly or by necessary implication. In this
c ase, the af oresaid amend men t of sec tion 153 of the Ac t h as been
explic itly made app lic able f rom July 01, 2012, to all pend ing
assess men t orders. In the re lied u pon c ase of Kar imthar uv i Te a
Es tate L imited vs Sta te of Kerala [1966] repor ted in 60 ITR 262, the
Hon'ble Supre me Cour t de liber ated on the levy of add itional tax b y
way of a surch arg e on the ag ricul tur al income -tax as we ll' as levy of
super-tax. The amendment re lated to computatio n of to tal income
and, conseq uen tly, was c le ar ly subs tan tive in na ture. The case of
Co mmiss ioner of Weal th -tax vs S mt. Hasmatunn is a B egu m [1989]
repor ted in 176 IT R 98 (S.C.), dealt with the pro per co ns truc tio n of
the prov iso to sec tion 4(1)( a) of the Wealth-tax Ac t, 1957, which
prov ides f or exemp tion respec ting tr ansf erre d asse ts wh ic h would
o ther wise be in c ludable in the taxable weal th of the ass essee under
sec tio n 4(1)( a) of the Act. Thus, there would be no man ner of doub t
that the s ame de alt with a subs tan tive prov is ion impac ting upon the
de ter mination of taxable net weal th of an assessee.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Sri J.H. Gotla, Yadagiri on 29 August, 1985
7.3 It is we ll-settl ed that if a notice is in s ubs tance and ef f ect in
conf ormity with or according to the in te nt and purposes of the A ct,
any def ec t, mis take or omission will no t inv alid ate it. In the c ase of
CIT vs J ag at Novel E xhibitors (P) Ltd [2012] repor te d in 248 CTR
217, the H on'b le De lhi H igh Cour t h as observed as under (H.N.):
Section 119 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Raval & Co vs K. C. Ramachandran & Ors on 11 December, 1973
In ano ther c ase relied u pon,
i.e., Keshav ji Rav ji & Co. Vs. C IT [ 1990] repor ted in 18 3 IT R I, th e
Hon'ble Supre me Cour t made a ref erence to C ircu lar No. 33-D (XXV-
Income Tax Officer vs Bir Engg. Works [Alongwith Misc. Appln. ... on 14 February, 2005
4.7 The appe llan t has also apparen tl y relied o n the dec is ion of the
Ld. Appe lla te Tr ib un al in ITO vs. Bir Eng ineer ing Works [2005]
repor ted in 94 IT D 164 (SB). Howe ver, a perusal of th e dec is ion
sho ws that the f inding given was that Instr uc tions /Circulars issued
under sec tio n 119 of the Ac t are binding on Dep ar tme n t of f ices and
was de livered in the contex t of Instr uction No. 1979 d ated 27-03-
2000 of the CBDT in respect of not f iling appe als belo w a bench mar k
tax ef f ect f or reducing litiga tion as well benevo lently be nef iting the
s mall taxpayers. On the con tr ary, the docu men ts cited by the
appe llan t have no t been issued under sec tion 11 9 of the Ac t and
ne ither do they e ven purpor t to supply an in terpre tation of the
limitation c lauses of the Ac t, nor do they re lax the r igours of a
prov is ion of the s ta tu te.
Income Tax Officer vs Manohar Das Agarwal [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 28 February, 2006
4.9 T he appe llan t has c ited the case of decided by the ld. Appe llate
Tribun al, Indore, in Sanjay Kr. Agar wal vs. AC IT 5(1), In dore (LT. A
No. 490/ Ind./2008 dated 27-11- 2008. wh ich was on Ins tr uc tion No.
10/2004 dated 2 0-09-2004 of the CBDT. Ho wever, in Himac hal
Pr adesh S tate Fores t Corpor a tion L td vs DCIT [1998] repor ted in 231
IT R 556, the Hon'ble H imachal Pr ad esh High Cour t h as taken a
contr ary v ie w. Similar is the position of the Hon'ble M adr as H ig h
Cour t as adumbr a ted in ITO vs D. Manohar lal Ko thary [1990] (236
IT R 357).
Income Tax Officer And Anr. vs V.Mohan And Anr. on 14 December, 2021
In the case of Commissioner of We alth - tax vs V . T.
Ramal ing am [ 1993 ], 201 ITR 839, the Hon'ble Madr as H igh Cour t
held th at Cir cu lar s, being purely ad ministr a tive in n ature, cannot
bind the appe lla te author itie s in the matter of in terpre ta tion of the
prov is ions of the Ac t.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs The Scindia Steam Navigatlon Co. Ltd on 5 April, 1961
In the cited cas e
of CIT vs Scindia Ste a m Nav igation Co. Ltd. [196 1] repo r ted in 42
IT R 589, the Hon 'b le Supreme Cour t c onsidered an issue relating to
charge of tax with ref erence to sec tio n 10(2)(v ii) of the Act of 1922.
This would be a s ubstan tive amendment, witho u t an io ta of doub t.
Thus, the case la ws c ited by the appellan t concern the mse lves with
amend men ts th at are s ubstan tive in na ture, wh ile the is sue at h and
relates to a ch ang e in limitation per io d only le av ing the co mputation
of to tal inco me un touched and is, ther ef ore, manif estly procedural in
nature.
J.C. Mukerjea vs Karnani Industrial Bank Limited on 20 June, 1930
In
the case of C IT vs Karnani Indus tr ial B ank L td [1978] repor te d in
113 ITR 380, the Hon'ble Calcutta H igh Cour t has held that the
purpose of Demand No tice is to br ing to the atte n tion of and de mand
f rom the assessee, the amou nt of tax includ ing in terest and other
ite ms due. T he Hon'ble H igh Cour t observed tha t it is the du ty of the
Assess ing Of f icer concerned to give th is notice and there is no bar to
the iss ue of such a notice, if a proper or co rrec t no tice was no t
issued e ar lier.