Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria on 7 April, 1967
15. While considering the question of permitting the
revenue to raise this additional ground, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the revenue cannot be so permitted. First of all, it
took the view that it was an accepted position that the issue of
taxability of the interest was not part of the subject matter of the
assessment order or of the order of the first appellate authority for
the assessment year under appeal and, that being the case, there can
be no question of the setting of the process of assessment and action
by the authorities below for the first time. Consequently the
tribunal, following the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT
vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria : 66 ITR 443 came
to the conclusion that that the Appellate Authority had no
jurisdiction to assess the source of income which was not disclosed
either in the return or processed in the assessment order. The
tribunal obviously was of the view that if the additional ground was
permitted to be taken and it was ultimately allowed it would amount
ITR Nos.299 to 301 /1998 Page 12 of 17
to introducing a new source of income which was not there in the
assessment proceedings. Apart from this, the tribunal also
independently considered the question regarding the taxability of
interest. Considering all these factors, the tribunal declined the
revenue‟s request to restore the issue regarding taxability of interest
income which had not been processed or assessed by the Assessing
Officer or dealt with by the first Appellate Authority on these three
counts, independent of each other.
Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 215 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Saheli Synthetsics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 February, 2008
17. In response to this, Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of assessee submitted that the Income Tax Act
has a specific scheme. Referring to Section 246A he submitted that
it only the assessee who can file an appeal and not the revenue.
With reference to Section 251, learned counsel pointed out that
though the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has the power to
enhance, the same is limited to what is recorded in the assessment
order. Similarly, he submitted with reference to Section 254 that
the Tribunal can only pass orders in respect of the order appealed
against and must confine itself to the subject matter of the appeal
itself. The tribunal cannot enhance the assessment on the basis of
ITR Nos.299 to 301 /1998 Page 15 of 17
the material which does not form part of the original assessment
order or the appellate order. The learned counsel placed reliance on
the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics
Pvt Ltd v. CIT : 302 ITR 126.
Section 31 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 246A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central) N. ... on 30 September, 1999
3. According to the learned counsel for assessee, this
question has be to decided against the assessee and in favour of the
revenue in view of the decision of this Court in its own case in
respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 in the case
entitled Dalmia Dairy Industries Limited vs. CIT : 241 ITR 9. This
Court, in that case, had noted that the litigation expenses incurred for
ITR Nos.299 to 301 /1998 Page 3 of 17
recovering the sale proceeds from Pakistan were of a capital nature
and were not allowable as an expenditure. Consequently, following
this Court‟s decision in 241 ITR 9, the question raised in this
reference (ITR No. 299/1988) is decided in favour of the revenue
and against the assessee.