Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
M/S Chava Srinivasa Rao,, Warangal vs Assessee on 5 August, 2015 cites

M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000

10. As far as the first issue relating to earning of agricultural income from sale of bamboo sticks is considered, as could be Page 6 of 13 ITA No.997 of 2014 Chava Srinivasa Rao, Paloncha, Warangal seen from the material on record, assessee in the agricultural income shown in the return has included an amount of Rs.16.00 lakhs towards sale of bamboo trees. In course of the assessment proceedings in pursuance to the inquiry conducted by the AO assessee has submitted confirmation letter from the purchaser of bamboo sticks and has also stated that the entire amount was received in cheques. In fact, the assessment order as well as the replies submitted by the assessee in pursuance to the query made by the AO reveal that not only AO has conducted inquiry on the issue of agricultural income and more specifically with regard to the amount received on sale of bamboo sticks, but assessee has also submitted evidence in support of its claim of sale of bamboo sticks. Therefore, upon consideration of facts and facterials on record, it is clearly established that not only the AO has made inquiries with regard to the agricultural income, but has also applied his mind to the facts and materials on record. The same is the case with regard to the contribution to the chits. Though, it may be a fact that the AO has not made any reference to the contribution to Margadarsi Chits in the assessment order, however, perusal of assessee's replies submitted before the AO in course of the assessment proceedings, copies of which have been submitted in the paper book clearly demonstrate that the AO has made inquiry as far as contribution to chits are concerned. Therefore, as far as the issue of earning of agricultural income and investment in chits are concerned, AO having examined the issue and applied his mind to the facts and materials on record while completing the assessment, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on these two issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Page 7 of 13 ITA No.997 of 2014 Chava Srinivasa Rao, Paloncha, Warangal case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2080 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967

"9. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 420 - Full Document

Tara Devi Aggarwal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 27 November, 1972

"9. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 423 - P J Reddy - Full Document

The Director Of Income Tax vs M/S Dhyana Jyothi Trust on 10 March, 2014

In the rejoinder, ld AR relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Director of Income Tax vs. Jyothi Foundation (357 ITR 388) submitted before us, that the Page 5 of 13 ITA No.997 of 2014 Chava Srinivasa Rao, Paloncha, Warangal Revisional Authority while invoking power u/s 263, must make inquiry and ensure that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and he has no power to remand and direct the AO to conduct inquiry. The ld AR submitted, as far as sale of bamboo sticks are concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the same as the assessee cannot sell them on his own without taking permission of the Forest Authorities. It was submitted that from the time of cutting of bamboo trees to its despatch to the final destination, everything has to be monitored by the Forest authorities, hence there cannot be any dispute with regard to the sale of the bamboo sticks as it is regulated commodity. As far as investment in chits are concerned, ld AR submitted that the entire investment has been reflected in the books of accounts hence, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the source of the deposits. Thus, it was submitted that the ld CIT has invoked his jurisdiction invalidly.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1