Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Income Tax Rules, 1962
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation on 1 July, 1977
We have considered an identical question in CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation [1978] 112 ITR 839 (Mad.). We have held therein that with reference to the provisions of the 1961 Act, the assessment made on the firm as an unregistered firm, after the assessment made earlier in the case of one of the partners, was not legal. Though in the present case, the status taken is 'association of persons' there is nothing in principle which would differentiate it from the principle enunciated in the said decision... . (p. 777)
The above ruling, undoubtedly supports the contention of the assessee's learned counsel. However, I am not deciding this appeal on the basis of this contention, since it is not necessary to do so, in view of my findings above, that the reassessments themselves are invalid in law.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vidarbha vs Godavaridevi Saraf on 27 September, 1977
. . . an authority like an Income-tax Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that question. . . .(p. 592)
Therefore, on the merits of the case, I hold that there is no jurisdiction for disallowing the interest claimed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Murlidhar Jhawar And Purna Ginning & ... on 4 March, 1962
In doing so the Andhra Pradesh High Court derived support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar & Puma Ginning & Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, in F. No. 75/191/62-2(1), dated 28-4-1966 stated as under :
Universal Commercial Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 July, 1979
In the case of Universal Commercial Co. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 775, the Madras High Court had referred to its earlier decision in the case of CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation [1978] 112 ITR 839 and observed as under :
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
A plain reading of the above note, clearly shows that the above audit note has expressed an opinion on a point of law. No reference was also made to any judgment of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The question that arises now is whether the reassessments made on the basis of the above audit note are valid in law. In other words, the question is whether the opinion expressed in the audit note would amount to 'information', within the meaning of Section 147(6). The exact point is answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), in the negative. Respectfully, following the same I hold that the reassessments are not valid in law.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs H.D. Dennis And Others on 6 April, 1981
He also referred to the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. H.D. Dennis [1982] 135 ITR 1 wherein, the above ruling of the Supreme Court was followed.