Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.36 seconds)Section 35B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs C.I.T., West Bengal-Ii on 10 December, 1975
The aforesaid observations were noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287'."
Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd vs S. P. Kushare, S. T. O. Nagpur & Ors on 28 September, 1967
Ltd. v. S. P. Kushare, STO [1968] 21 STC 326 was entirely on a different basis. Firstly, even though it was a sales tax case, the principle might be the same. There, originally there was no return filed. That knowledge that there was no return filed originally was brought to the knowledge of the STO subsequently. Therefore, this was a subsequent knowledge of a fact, and it was certainly to be considered an information in terms of the requirement of the section. Here, in this case, even if it be considered to be a subsequent information, the materials were on record but that had not been considered. Then, if that was subsequently considered, the question might arise whether the subsequent consideration of the old materials on record would constitute information in terms of that section. Here, admittedly, in view of the matter that the assessee
had originally made a larger claim for deduction under Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961, and had, after filing the return, subsequently moved and reduced its claim and that it was brought to the knowledge of the ITO clearly established that this question, viz., whether this reduced claim, as claimed by the assessee under Section 35B of the Indian I.T. Act, 1961, was brought to the notice of the ITO and he had considered this aspect of the matter. If, on a consideration of this aspect of the matter, he had taken a view, then there being no subsequent view or subsequent opinion on any law of any authority competent to pronounce on law or subsequent information on any fact, a mere examination of old records afresh would not be a change of opinion on the basis of or in consequence of the information but really be a change of opinion--change of opinion simpliciter--on an appraisal of the old materials which would not be in consequence of any information as such. If that is the position, then, in our opinion, the reopening under Clause (b) of Section 147 of the I.T. Act was without basis.
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 1 October, 1958
This decision was given by a Bench of three learned judges and the Supreme Court, at page 1004 (of 119 ITR) of the report discussed this aspect and referred to the view that was taken in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT and CIT v. A. Raman and Co. and also Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT and on the basis of this the Supreme Court expressed the view that the observation in the case of Kalyanji Mavji v. CIT suggesting the contrary did not lay down the correct law.