Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 55 (0.90 seconds)The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer vs R.B.G.M. Modi And Bros. (P.) Ltd. on 6 July, 1988
We are unable to read into the decision rendered in ITO v. Seth Bros. (1969) 74 ITR 836 (SC) any requirement of law making it obligatory, on the part of the revenue, to disclose to the person, who approaches the court, the materials, which had been relied upon and/or information or set of information, which had been acted upon, for the purpose of issuing authorisation.
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
In the light of what is indicated by the Apex Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (20001) 7SCC 640, any controversy in a writ petition with regard to territorial jurisdiction has to be settled by the High Court on the basis of the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action without, of course, embarking upon an enquiry as to whether the facts pleaded are correct or not. Taking note of this position of law and also bearing in mind as to what cause of action means, when we look into i.e. pleadings in the writ petition, we find that the clear averments of the writ petitioner are that the search and seizure operations had been conducted in the office premises of the petitioner firm situated at Gauhati and Tinsukia, though warrants of authorisation had been issued in the names of certain individuals, namely, M.K Subba, A.K Subba and S.R. Subba and that various documents and books of account relating to the petitioner firm were seized and that while issuing warrant of authorisation, respondent No. 5, namely, DIT (Investigation), Gauhati, had no material to form a belief about the existence of the situations warranting recourse to section 132(1). To these averments, the respondents reacted by claiming that the action was taken by respondent No. 5 in concert with the DIT (Investigation), New Delhi, and the DIT (Investigation), Calcutta, on the basis of shared information. These averments clearly show that respondent No. 5, even according to the case of the respondents, had acted on the basis of the information, which had been shared with him by the DIT (Investigation), New Delhi, and the DIT (Investigation), Calcutta, and it was his satisfaction derived on the basis of the information so received that he issued the war-rant of authorisation leading to the said search and seizure.
Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection ... on 14 December, 1973
94. The word "information" must, therefore, be given wider meaning, for a narrower construction may defeat the object of section 132(1), which is directed against persons, who are believed on good grounds to have evaded payment of tax on their income and property, (see Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), Income-tax (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC).
Article 194 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Coca-Cola Export Corporation Etc vs Income Tax Officer & Anr on 30 March, 1998
103. What the decisions in Union of India v. Ajit Jain (2003) 260 ITR 801 (SC); Coca-Cola Export Corpn. v. ITO (1998) 231 ITR 2001 (SC) and CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corpn. (1997) 224 ITR 614 4 (SC) go to show is that one must not believe an information merely for the reason that a statutory authority has given the "Information", for "information' may come from any source, but can be acted upon for the purpose of issuing the warrant of authorisation, only if the information has materials which can induce a prudent person to believe the correctness or truthfulness of the information. Thus, search and seizure cannot be authorised under section 132(l)(c) merely because accusation of evasion of tax by a citizen has been reported by a high constitutional appointee, such as, the CAG. Such a report can, indeed, be used, unless prohibited by law, to find out if there is substance in the accusation made by the CAG and if such, an enquiry made by the authorities concerned uncovers materials and if, based on such materials, the authorities concerned have "reasons to believe" the
"information" as regards evasion of tax, resort to the issuance of authorisation under section 132(1)(c) cannot be barred unless there is any provision in the Constitution or in any other statute prohibiting use of such material(s) for the purpose of taking recourse to section 132(1)(c).
Vindhya Metal Corporation And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 4 May, 1983
104. There can be no doubt that the existence or otherwise of the conditions precedent for the exercise of powers under section 132(1) of the Act is open to judicial scrutiny. The court can examine whether the authorised person had materials before him on which he could form the opinion and whether there is a rational connection between the information possessed and the opinion formed. The absence of the conditions precedent would have the effect of vitiating the authorisation. While the sufficiency or other-wise of the information cannot be examined by the court, the existence of information and its relevance to the formation of the belief can, undoubtedly be gone into (See Vindhya Metal Corpn. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 233 (All)).