Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.07 seconds)Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
( Emphasis supplied externally)
4.11 The ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus
Kelvinator of India (supra) is not applicable over the facts of the instant
case as there is no change of opinion observed by us in the instant case.
Thus, the argument of the Ld. counsel on change of opinion also fails,
and reassessment proceeding cannot be invalidated on the ground of
change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs C.I.T., West Bengal-Ii on 10 December, 1975
In the case of Kalyanji
Mavji & Company Vs. CIT (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the information may come from external source or even from
materials already on record or may be derived from the discovery of new
and important matter or fresh facts. In the instant case also the
Assessing Officer discovered the facts required for reopening the
assessment, during the assessment proceeding for assessment year
2007-08 and which constitutes an information on the basis of which the
Assessing Officer was having "reason to believe" that income escaped
assessment. Thus, the contention of the ld. counsel that there was no
58
ITA No. 289 to 293/Del/2013
fresh material for reopening of the assessment is not true. Further, the ld.
counsel contended that that there was no failure or omission on the part
of the assessee in disclosing facts fully and truly. We find that the
assessment has been reopened within the four years from the end of the
relevant assessment year and therefore the proviso to section 147 of the
Act, according to which no assessment could be reopened without failure
on the part of the assessee to disclose fact truly and fully, is not attracted
in the facts of the instant case.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvi vs Shri Atul Kumar Swami on 12 September, 2014
11.9 Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Atul
Kumar Swami (supra) held that "mere conclusion of proceeding under
section 143(1) does not ipso facto brings power of invocation of
reopening assessments. The relevant para of the decision is reproduced
as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs State Agro Development Corporation on 17 November, 2000
We
find that in the case of CIT Vs. State Agro Development Corporation
(supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir observed as
under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Smifs Securities Ltd. (Presently ... on 9 June, 2010
7.6 Though we have held in preceding paras that following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities
Ltd. (supra), depreciation on goodwill is allowable, but in view of the
above decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, in our
opinion, the claim of the depreciation on goodwill cannot be allowed in
the year under consideration.