Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 50 (0.46 seconds)Section 69 in The Indian Ports Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Special Courts Act, 1979
The Indian Ports Act, 1908
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ekbal And Co. on 14 September, 1944
In certain cases these notices were held
to be invalid on the ground that where the Act allows the assessee time to
file revised returns within a stipulated period under the Act, it was not open
to the Assessing Officer to call upon the assessee to file the returns within
thirty days - CIT v. Ekbal & Co. [1945] 13 ITR 154 (Bom.). In view of these
conflicting decisions, the Legislature by virtue of Taxation Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1996, deleted the above expression "not being less than
thirty days". However, the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act of 1996 got the
Presidential assent on 28th Sept., 1996. No doubt, the Amending Act
operated w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. However, the Amending Act got the
Presidential assent only on 28th Sept., 1996, by which time the entire,
gamut of reassessment proceedings, in this case, got concluded before the
Tribunal when it allowed the appeal of the assessee striking down initiation
of reassessment proceedings under the then existing law. That decision of
the Tribunal was delivered on 26th June, 1996, i.e., three months prior to
the amending law receiving the Presidential assent. In the circumstances,
the miscellaneous application filed by the Department was rightly rejected
by the Tribunal as there was no mistake apparent from the record in the
order of the Tribunal dated 26th June, 1996.
Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, ... vs Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Cen Rg 4, Mumbai on 27 December, 2017
97. Since the facts of the instant issue before us is identical
vis-à-vis the coordinate bench decision supra, we accordingly,
direct the AO to re-compute the interest under section 234A,
234B and 234C of the Act in terms of the above decision after
reducing the amount of tax deductible at source on the income
assessed. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Accordingly, the ground No.18 is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sudhir S. Mehta on 23 April, 2003
Even the decision of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sudhir S. Mehta (supra) has
17 ITA No.259/M/2019 & ors.
M/s. Growmore Research &
Assets Management Ltd.