Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi, New ... on 9 April, 1980
In that case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co.s case [supra] which has already been discussed above and found distinguishable.
Shew Kissen Bhattar vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 5 March, 1973
So this argument that interest on interest is allowable to the assessee undei Section 24(1)(vi) has in term been rejected by the Supreme Court in the case of Shew Kissen Bhatter [supra].
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976
7. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103ITR 437, it was submitted that a mere change of opinion would not empower the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment by issue of notice under Section 148. Reliance was also placed on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Mukhtiar Singh Sandhuv. ITO [1986] 160 ITR 526. It was submitted that the assessee could not be held guilty of not disclosing truly and correctly the material facts necessary for assessment and, therefore, the notices issued for reassessments were invalid.
Kalyan Rice And General Mills And Anr. vs Income-Tax Officer on 28 April, 1989
20. The learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Kalyan Rice & General Mills v. ITO [1989] 180 ITR 41. This decision is not found relevant to the present controversy and it is not understood as to how the learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on this decision.
Shiv Lal Kanhaya Lal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 September, 1985
8. Reliance was also placed on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Shiv Lal Kanhaya Lal v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 548 for the proposition that reassessment proceedings on the basis of a mere change of opinion were invalid. It was vehemently argued that no new information had come into possession of the Assessing Officer which would clothe him with the powers to reopen the assessments particularly for assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
1