Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (1.17 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. on 1 October, 1997
21) The Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the Judgment
in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.V.S. Beedies Private
Limited15 wherein the Supreme Court held that, both the
Tribunal and the High Court were in error in holding that the
information given by internal audit party could not be treated as
information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Income
Tax Act. The Court held that, the audit party has merely pointed
out a fact which has been overlooked by the Income Tax Officer in
the assessment, namely, that the recognition granted to the
charitable trust which expired on 22-9-1992 was not noticed by
the Income Tax Officer. This was not a case of information on a
question of law. The court held that, reopening of the case on the
basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit party is
permissible under law. While making the said observation, the
14
[1979] 119 ITR 996/2 Taxman 197.
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
"The assessee claimed deduction under Section 35 during the
assessment year 1972-73 for the building for which construction
was started during assessment year 1970-71 and completed
during assessment year 1972-73. In original assessment the
Assessing Officer allowed the entire expenditure. However, on
basis of report by audit party who had pointed out that under
Section 35(1)(iv), read with Section 35(2), only the expenditure
incurred for the construction of the building in that assessment
year alone can be allowed as deduction and the expenditure
incurred in the previous year cannot be allowed in the present
assessment year, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment
proceedings. The Tribunal cancelled the order of reassessment. On
reference, the High Court held that apart from the information
13
[2001] 117 Taxman 366 (SC)
24
furnished by the audit party, the Assessing Officer had no other
information for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b). The
opinion expressed by the audit party would go to show that they
had pointed out to the Assessing Officer that he failed to apply the
provisions contained in Section 35. This would amount to pointing
out the law and the interpretation of the provisions contained in
Section 35, which is clearly barred by the decision of the Supreme
Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT14.
We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. Despite his
very persuasive argument, we are, on the facts available to us,
unable to take a view other than that taken by the Tribunal and the
high Court. Accordingly the Appeals were dismissed".
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
25) Finally, another issue came to be raised by the learned
Counsel for the Respondents stating that, since there is
alternative remedy, the Petitioner ought not have invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court. In Jeans Knit (P.) Ltd v. Deputy
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore17 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dealt with the said issue where the High Court dismissed
the Writ Petitions preferred by assessee challenging issuance of
notice under Section 148 as the same is contrary to law laid down
in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [supra].
While setting aside Orders of the High Court, the matters were
remitted to the respective High Courts to decide the Writ Petitions
on merits.