Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)
Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Grade-1 ... on 28 August, 2019 cites

M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kerala vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 4 April, 2007

"8. It is not disputed before us that if there is a change of opinion, reassessment under Section 29(7) is not permissible. When it can be said "change of opinion" has been recently considered by Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Aryaverth Chawl Udyoug and others (2016) 91 VST 1 (SC) wherein after referring to its earlier decisions in Binani Industries Limited, Kerala Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, VI Circle, Bangalore 2007 (15) SCC 435 and A.L.A. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 1991 (2) SCC 558 the Court said as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 80 - A Pasayat - Full Document

A.L.A. Firm vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 21 February, 1991

"8. It is not disputed before us that if there is a change of opinion, reassessment under Section 29(7) is not permissible. When it can be said "change of opinion" has been recently considered by Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Aryaverth Chawl Udyoug and others (2016) 91 VST 1 (SC) wherein after referring to its earlier decisions in Binani Industries Limited, Kerala Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, VI Circle, Bangalore 2007 (15) SCC 435 and A.L.A. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 1991 (2) SCC 558 the Court said as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 276 - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 25 February, 2004

It is further argued that in the impugned order, the respondent has relied upon a survey report dated 22.09.2009 submitted by the SIB Unit, for which no notice, whatsoever, was given by the respondent no. 1. The said survey report has been relied upon behind the back of the petitioner as the petitioner was neither put to any notice while issuing notice dated 18.02.2007 under section 29(2) of the VAT Act (Anneuxre No. 6 to the writ petition), nor before passing the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 (Anneuxre No.8 to the writ petition). Therefore, the impugned order, relying upon the survey report, is also bad. On the said point, the petitioner has relied upon the judgement in Hindustan Liver Limited Vs. R.W. Wadkar ACIT, reported in (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) at page 338; wherein, following observation has been made:-
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 271 - V C Daga - Full Document

Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010

In support of this submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements in CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited, reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and M/s Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No. 181 of 2014, decided on 28.02.2017), (see pages 11, 12, 19 & 20). The relevant observations made in the judgement are quoted below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1696 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 21 July, 2003

In support of this submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements in CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited, reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and M/s Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No. 181 of 2014, decided on 28.02.2017), (see pages 11, 12, 19 & 20). The relevant observations made in the judgement are quoted below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 63 - S V Patil - Full Document

Arun Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 September, 2006

In absence of any material it was not open to the authorities to assume existence of such facts for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction and to later, in the course of reassessment proceedings to conduct an inquiry as to its existence or otherwise. The Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors (2007) 1 SCC 732 has categorically held :
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 129 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Dinesh Chandra H. Shah And Ors. on 27 August, 1971

"30. In case of there being a change of opinion, there must necessarily be a nexus that requires to be established between the "change of opinion" and the material present before the assessing authority. Discovery of an inadvertent mistake or non-application of mind during assessment would not be a justified ground to reinitiate proceedings Under Section 21(1) of the Act on the basis of change in subjective opinion (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah: [1972] 3 SCC 231 : and Income-tax Officer v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur: [1975] 4 SCC 360.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 78 - A N Grover - Full Document
1   2 3 Next