Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Central Warehousing Corporation A ... vs The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, ... on 5 May, 2005 cites

Gurunanak Enterprises And Bhagya Rekha ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 7 January, 2003

9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of 1. Gurunanak Enterprises and 2. Bhagya Rekha Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. 2003 Vol. 259 ITR 637 held that where the petitioner, a sole proprietary concern was the sole selling agent for and on behalf of an organising agent authorised by the State Government to conduct lottery business, and tickets were sold to different stockists in the States in India, which according to the Revenue involved a highly specialised and complex accounting system, it was necessary to order special audit, and the Court held as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 16 - D K Jain - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Prop Surya Trading vs Dy Cit on 3 February, 2005

7. The expression 'accounts' used in Section 142(2A) is not merely the 'books of accounts' of the assessed. It could include the books of accounts, balance-sheets and all other records which are available to the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Prop. Surya Trading v. The Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax in the case of W.P.(C) No. 921-924/2005 decided on 3rd February, 2005 held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 40 - S Kumar - Full Document

Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 23 May, 2000

We may also refer to the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sahara India Mutual Benefit Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2004 Vol. 269 Income Tax Reports 563 where the petitioner had more than 1200 branches, a large number of depositors by itself would show the complexity of the accounts and order of the Assessing Officer was held to be proper. As far as the contention of the petitioner that there should be compliance to the principles of natural justice, before such an order is passed, is again without merit. Firstly, we are unable to appreciate what prejudice the petitioner/corporation has suffered as a result of the impugned order. Secondly it is also clear from the record, that the Assessing Officer had discussed the matters with the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In fact, in the representations as well as the replies submitted by the assessed itself, no ground was raised in regard to the violation of the principles of audi alteram partem and in fact it was stated that the order under Section 142(2A) of the Act should be kept in abeyance. It was admitted in the letter dated 14th November, 2000 that the Assessing Officer had issued notice for hearing of the case. Even in these documents no averments have been made which could ex facie show that the opinion or satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer lacks objectivity and is not in consonance with the principles enunciated in Section 142(2A) of the Act. In the impugned order, the Assessing Officer, has clearly stated the complexity in the accounts, the points which the special auditor should deal in his report specifically and that the order was being passed in the interest of the Revenue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

All India Reported Ltd. And Others vs Competent Authority, Inspecting ... on 6 February, 1981

267 Income Tax Reports 345 and Bata India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 Vol. 257 Income Tax Reports 263. There is no doubt that in both these cases both the courts had taken the view that order under Section 142(2A) of the Act was not called, for but facts of these cases are entirely different. In those cases, the Assessing Officer had not examined the books of accounts and had formed an opinion as contemplated under Section 142(2A) of the Act without proper application of mind. While in the case of Bata India, the Court found that it was only the doubt of the Assessing Officer which had been equated to the complexity of accounts and the satisfaction has not been recorded upon objective considerations. In fact, the authorities did not find any fault with the two audit reports filed by the petitioner along with the return in that case. These cases are of no help to the petitioner because it is only after perusing the records of the assessed, raising queries for the year in question as well as for such years and having failed to get any satisfactory answer and keeping in view the complexity and nature of accounts and interest of the revenue, that such a direction has been made by the Assessing Officer. We have already noticed that on the own showing of the assessed they have a huge business of different kinds, part of which is taxable while part of which is exempted from taxation. The losses of one are being set up against the other and without proper bifurcation thereof being shown to the Assessing Officer much less to his satisfaction. The Assessing Officer formed his opinion and submitted the same for previous approval of the competent authority which was admittedly granted.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs I.T.C. Ltd. And Anr. on 2 July, 1999

In the case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. ITC Limited and another 1999 Vol. 239 Income Tax Reports 921 it was the case of the assessed that they had 43 branches all over the country and they had added 81.42 crores to the plant and machinery, 2.5 crores to motor vehicles, Rs.14.86 crores to land and Rs.6.69 crores to the building. The Court held that the formation of opinion by the Assessing Officer, that nature and complexity of accounts was such that it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to justify the correct assessment of income and to examine the correctness of the accounts, the Assessing Officer was right in appointing special auditor with previous approval.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next