Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.14 seconds)Section 151 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 33 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
B.R. Bamasi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 February, 1970
Insofar as the plea of assessee for admitting the aforesaid Grounds of
appeal for adjudication are concerned, in our view, the same is admissible
considering the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.R.
Bamasi (supra). Notably, the Hon'ble High Court, inter-alia, considered the
following questions of law :-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co., ... on 8 December, 1976
and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gilbert &
Barker, 111 ITR 529 (Bom) to contend that in an appeal filed by the
Revenue, the respondent is entitled to raise a plea challenging the legal
validity of the Assessing Officer's assessment order in order to seek
dismissal of the appeal of Revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Hazarimal Nagji & Co. on 6 October, 1961
"The only question is whether the Tribunal was entitled in law to
refuse to allow the assessee to urge that ground in the appeal before
it. Now a Division Bench of this High Court in Commissioner of
Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co., after considering the relevant
sections of the Income-tax Act and the relevant Rules made
thereunder, held that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are
similar to the powers of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure
Code. It has further held that the respondent in an appeal is
undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in his favour on
any grounds which are available to him, even though the decision of
the lower court in his favour may not have been based on those
grounds. It has further held that if the appellant in his challenge to
the decree of the lower court is entitled to take a new ground not
agitated in the court below by leave of the court, there appears to be
no reason why a respondent in support of the decree in his favour
passed by the lower court should not be entitled to agitate a new
ground and subject to the same limitation.
Kanpur Industrial Works vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 12 April, 1965
A Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view in Kanpur Industrial
Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax. That judgment has
considered the position of an appeal under section 33 of the Income-
tax Act along with the relevant Rules and that of an appeal under the
Page | 5
ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024
Rajeev Kumar Arora
Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Order XLI, rule 22. The
judgment holds that when the department files an appeal for an
increase in the assessed income, the subject matter of the appeal is
the increase claimed by the department and the assessee can urge
any ground of defence even though it might have been rejected by
the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for showing that there should
be no increase. It has further held that that the assessee is not liable
to be assessed at all is a ground for showing that there should be no
further assessment and the department's appeal can therefore be
resisted on that ground and that there is no incongruity in
maintaining the assessment order passed against the assessee and
yet refusing to increase it on the ground that he was not liable to be
assessed at all. The judgment points out however that if the Tribunal
accepts the ground of defence that the assessee was not liable to be
assessed, it can only refuse to increase the assessed income as only
such an order would be within the scope of the appeal filed by the
department and any other order such as annulling the assessment
would be outside the scope of the appeal. That judgment holds that
the position of an appeal under section 33 of the Income-tax Act and
an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure is identical.....