Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)
Avnindra Mishra, Mathura vs Ito-1(3)(1), Mathura on 5 July, 2018 cites

Shri Abdul Majid vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 May, 2005

In 'Abdul Majid Vs. CIT', 281 ITR 366 (All), the assessee moved an application for addition of grounds in grounds of appeal before Tribunal on the ground that since the reasons were not recorded before issuing the notice, the requirement of section 148(2) was not complied with and, therefore, the proceedings were invalid and void ab initio. However, the ITAT did not permit the assessee to raise this plea. On appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, it was held that even if a plea, relating to lack of jurisdiction of officer on ground that no reason was recorded before issue of notice under section 148(2), is not raised at the first instance before the assessing authority, it can be raised before the appellate authority at a later stage and that therefore, Tribunal had erred in not allowing the assessee to raise the additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order on the basis of illegal initiation of proceedings under section 148.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S. Ginni Filaments Ltd. vs Commissioner, Of Income Tax-I, Agra on 31 March, 2011

In 'M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT', Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 (All), the assessee had not valued its closing stock as per the provisions of Section 145A of the IT Act. Notice under section 148 was issued, which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court, while sustaining the notice under section 148, held that at this stage, it can be said that there is relevant material on the record to form a reasonable belief that the taxable income of the assessee has escaped assessment, in view of section 145-A of the Act. The present controversy was not involved therein.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - P Krishna - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Jodhpur vs Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr on 22 January, 1997

In 'ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur', 224 ITR 362 (SC), re-assessment proceedings were upheld where the Assessee claimed that he had incurred capital loss on sale of shares held in a company, which was based on official quotation at Calcutta Stock Exchange and the same was allowed in original assessment. Subsequently, the ITO received a letter from the Directorate of Investigation, giving detailed particulars collected from the Bombay Stock Exchange, which revealed that the quotation appearing at Calcutta Stock Exchange was a result of manipulated transaction. On the very next day of receipt of the letter, the ITO issued notice under section 147(b). The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the letter from the Directorate contained definite information derived from the Bombay Stock Exchange Directory about the financial condition of Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. during the period 1965-70, which indicated that during this period, the company had prospered and that the book value per equity share had risen from Rs. 318.55 for the year ending 31-12-1965 to Rs. 401 for the year ending 31-12-1970, that the earning per share rose from Rs. 8.37 per share to Rs. 44 per share and that the dividend percentage had also risen from 2 per cent to 10 per cent for the same period, which falsified the claim of the assessee and accordingly Notice under section 148 was upheld. These facts are absent herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 97 - Full Document

Shri Anil Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs Ito, Muzaffarnagar on 4 October, 2017

In 'Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO', 33 taxman.com434 (Agra Trib) (SMC Bench), ITAT upheld the initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act after having found that after receipt of report from the Investigation Wing, the AO had applied his mind to such information and had then issued the notice to the assessee. No issue of non-application of mind by the AO, however, stands raised in the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next