Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.41 seconds)Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel vs G.V. Shah, Income-Tax Officer, Rajkot ... on 22 June, 1973
It is a fact that their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. did consider the facts of the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Karsandas Bhagzvandas Patel v. G. V. Shah, ITO and the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Satish Chandra Nirmesh Kumar v. Additional fudge (Revisions) Sales Tax [1974] 34 STC 304 and distinguished these decisions and thus, the ratio of the decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. is still good law. It need not be repeated that the decision of the hon'ble Allahabad High Court has a binding effect on us as we are functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of U.P. For the above reasons, we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 in view of the decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 344 (All) it cannot be said on this ground alone that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial under Section 263 and passing the order under appeal. Hence, we cancel the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and restore that of the Income-tax Officer. However, at the cost of repetition, it may be made clear that the other grounds taken up by the assessee in these appeals shall remain open for adjudication as and when need may rise.
Satish Chandra, Nirmesh Kumar vs Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales ... on 26 November, 1973
It is a fact that their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. did consider the facts of the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Karsandas Bhagzvandas Patel v. G. V. Shah, ITO and the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Satish Chandra Nirmesh Kumar v. Additional fudge (Revisions) Sales Tax [1974] 34 STC 304 and distinguished these decisions and thus, the ratio of the decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. is still good law. It need not be repeated that the decision of the hon'ble Allahabad High Court has a binding effect on us as we are functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of U.P. For the above reasons, we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 in view of the decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 344 (All) it cannot be said on this ground alone that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial under Section 263 and passing the order under appeal. Hence, we cancel the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and restore that of the Income-tax Officer. However, at the cost of repetition, it may be made clear that the other grounds taken up by the assessee in these appeals shall remain open for adjudication as and when need may rise.
Finance Act, 1999
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat-I, ... vs Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad on 23 January, 1996
6. We find that Section 263 of the Act had undergone a sea change in the year 1988. Earlier uncertainty regarding the question as to whether the order of the Assessing Officer had merged in appeal or not even where in respect of the part of the assessment order, which was not the subject-matter of appeal has been set at rest by the insertion of Clause (c) of the Explanation as inserted by the Finance Act, 1989, with effect from June 1, 1988. This clause came up for consideration before the apex court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. , wherein the apex court has held as follows (page 52):
Abhishek Synthetics Private Limited, ... vs Addl. Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 8 August, 2002
7. We have considered the submission of both the parties as well as the facts on record and the case law relied upon by them. The Commissioner of Income-tax dealing with the legal aspect of the matter no doubt distinguished the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT and held that the ratio of the decision of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. is not universally applicable and the question of merger is decided with reference to the facts of each case.
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee came up in appeal before the Tribunal. The authorised representative for the assessee contended before the Tribunal that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in passing order under Section 263 of the Act and furthermore that the said order was illegal, uncalled for and without any basis. The authorised representative for the assessee in support of this contention placed reliance on various decisions and strongly contended that the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax was against law and the same was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the Departmental representative justified the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax relying upon the various decisions of this Court and that of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. v. ITO . The Tribunal, after considering the submission of both the sides and the decision relied upon by them, held as under:
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1