Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Sehorse Mercantile Co. P Ltd., Mumbai vs Pr.Cit-6, Mumbai on 28 April, 2022 cites

Income Tax Officer vs Dg Housing Projects Ltd on 1 March, 2012

10. Learned Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329). Further learned counsel submitted that without prejudice the issue raised by the learned PCIT could have at the most been taken up by reopening of the assessment and not revision under section 263 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 312 - S Khanna - Full Document

Baijnath Biswanath And Anr. vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 25 June, 1998

In this regard it is noted that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Jewanlal Ltd. Addl. CIT (108 ITR 407) has laid down that the exercise of discretion and judgment by the commissioner must be of himself. Where on suggestion of the audit department the commissioner exercised his power of revision it was held that the action on the part of commissioner was unwarranted. Similarly Hon'ble Guahati High Court in Baijnath Biswanath and others Vs. State of Assam (133 STC 300)(Chaturvedi & Pethesaria Income Tax law seventh Edition page 13526) has held that the power reposed on the commissioner is a power of judicial nature and therefore such power is to be exercised lawfully and with due application of mind. That the power cannot be exercised mechanically or at the behest of some other authority other than on the own discretion of the revisional authority himself. It was held that the commissioner is not to exercise his discretion on the dictation of some other authority.
Gauhati High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd. on 15 April, 1993

the revision power under section 263 cannot be exercised in respect of a matter which falls within the power to assess escaped income. That the revising authority should not trench upon the powers which are expressly reserved to the Assessing Officer under section 147. The commissioner in exercising of its revision of jurisdiction should not ignore such a specific power in this regard. We note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 has expounded that there must be material available from the records called for by the Commissioner, so as to bestow upon him the power to exercise jurisdiction. In the present case as noted earlier the records of the assessing officer up to the date of passing of order did not have the statements and other aspects which came into existence subsequent to the order passed by the assessing officer. Moreover, the assessment details of other entities are not marked on record of the assessment of assessee. Hence in the background of aforesaid discussion it amply evident that the information and material on the basis of which learned CIT is exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 came into existence after the assessment order passed by the assessing officer. It is also not the case that they were available to the Assessing Officer in assessment record. These materials can be a source of reopening but on the touchstone of aforesaid case laws learned CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T Act. It is also noted that it is not the case that there was no time for the assessing officer to reopen the assessment.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 701 - Full Document
1