Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.35 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors on 25 November, 2002
In the case of
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only
provided step wise procedure and nowhere it has been held that if
objections are not filed before learned Assessing officer such objection
cannot be taken up at any further stage or the legal right of assessee would
stands waived. It would be reading or making us to read something which
is not there in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No inference
against the assessee is possible as far as substantive right is concerned.
Thus, the reliance is misplaced.
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Ward 'A', ... on 16 November, 1976
In this view of
the matter and particularly following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
14
ITA No.408/Agra/2018
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09)
of Parsuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd (supra) request of the learned Sr. D.R
for setting aside the case is rejected.
Amrik Singh, Chandigarh vs Ito, Chandigarh on 4 June, 2018
In such circumstances, at the first
place as rightly relied upon by the learned A.R to the order passed by the
Amritsar Bench in the case of Amrik Singh (Supra) wherein the Tribunal in
identical circumstances quashed the assessment holding that:
Shri Anil Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs Ito, Muzaffarnagar on 4 October, 2017
24. The ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of 'Anil Singhal Vs ITO',' in ITA
No. 2044/Del/2017 vide order dated 04.10.2017 was called upon to
examine the legality of action initiated under section 147 where 'reasons'
recorded were, as reproduced in the ITAT order in para-2 were as under:
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Maniben Valji Shah on 14 February, 2005
In the case of 'CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah', 283 ITR 453 the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under
section 148 of the Act where proceedings under section 147 was initiated
to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. It was held
by the Hon'ble High Court that:
Pragnesh Ramanlal Patel,, Ahmedabad vs The Ito, Ward-5, Kadi,, Mehsana on 12 July, 2018
In the case of 'Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs ITO', 56 DTR 0212 the
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that:
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central-I vs M/S. Indo Arab Air Services on 20 October, 2015
29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has
been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form
requisite satisfaction that investment in property is income of current year
25
ITA No.408/Agra/2018
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09)
and which has escaped assessment; that the reasons recorded in the case
in hand are no reasons in the eye of law, being completely barren and bald
in nature as it is not mentioned that in what material terms the reply is
lacking in nature; that the reasons do not show any mental exercise having
been done by him before arriving at the satisfaction for escapement of
income and thus, the AO made his conclusions, leaving the reader to
guess for the material on basis of which of belief of escapement is founded.
The so called reasons instead of being reasons to believe are reasons to
suspect and sought to extend the scope of enquiry from the stage where it
was left vide enquiry letter. The investment need not necessarily come from
the income. It may be out of income exempted from tax, past savings,
loans, gifts, liquidation of investment or sale of another property etc., notice
under section 148 cannot be issued for verification of information, but here
the jurisdictional satisfaction is the essential requirement has to be shown
that there has been reason to believe that there was income chargeable to
tax. The reasons recorded by the Assessing officer should speak his mind
and the basis for coming to conclusion that investment had been sourced
from income, which should have been disclosed and had not been shown
therefore, there was escapement of income. There must be direct nexus
26
ITA No.408/Agra/2018
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09)
between the material and belief of escapement. This mental exercise must
be self-evident from the reasons recorded. Reasons must be self-speaking
and self-defending as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
CIT Vs Indo Arab Air Services 283 CTR 0092 (Del) that: