Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967
In this case, the ratio of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram-pyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 was duly considered and in those cases the action of the ITO in passing the assessment orders without any enquiry and evidence or in undue hurry in passing short stereo-typed assessment order were duly considered to come to the conclusion that the order passed was erroneous so as to invoke the revisional power as such order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In other words, those oases of Supreme Court have established that the CIT could rezard the assessment order passed by the ITO as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, the ITO should have made further enquiry before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return of income. The Delhi High Court at page 386 of its judgment also pointed out the distinction between a Civil Court and the Income Tax Officer, inasmuch as the former is neutral and simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which came before it, while the ITO was not only the adjudicator but also an investigator and he could not remain passive in the face of a return which was apparently in order but called for further enquiry. It pointed out that it was the duty of the ITO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case were such as to provoke an enquiry. The word "erroneous" in Section 263 would contemplate such inaction on the part of the ITO which would make the assessment passed in such circumstances as "erroneous" so as to call for revisional order by the CIT.
Tara Devi Aggarwal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 27 November, 1972
In this case, the ratio of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram-pyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 was duly considered and in those cases the action of the ITO in passing the assessment orders without any enquiry and evidence or in undue hurry in passing short stereo-typed assessment order were duly considered to come to the conclusion that the order passed was erroneous so as to invoke the revisional power as such order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In other words, those oases of Supreme Court have established that the CIT could rezard the assessment order passed by the ITO as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, the ITO should have made further enquiry before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return of income. The Delhi High Court at page 386 of its judgment also pointed out the distinction between a Civil Court and the Income Tax Officer, inasmuch as the former is neutral and simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which came before it, while the ITO was not only the adjudicator but also an investigator and he could not remain passive in the face of a return which was apparently in order but called for further enquiry. It pointed out that it was the duty of the ITO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case were such as to provoke an enquiry. The word "erroneous" in Section 263 would contemplate such inaction on the part of the ITO which would make the assessment passed in such circumstances as "erroneous" so as to call for revisional order by the CIT.
Devidas Vithaldas & Co vs C.I.T., Bombay City on 28 January, 1972
In the case of the assessee before us, there is nothing on record to show that the goodwill of the partnership business belonged to Smt. Kanchanben exclusively as in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. (supra). It is only after the finding whether it belongs to the retiring partner, the question of consideration of mode of payment and the basis of payment becomes relevant for consideration. Therefore, we agree with the CIT that the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. was not applicable to the asses-see's case as the facts could be distinguished with the facts of the assessee's case.
Section 14 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Vithaldas Thakordas And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 October, 1946
Therefore, the facts in the case of Vithaldas Thakordas & Co. (supra) were different from the facts of the assessee's case and therefore, that ratio could not be applied to the assessee's case. Consequently, the CIT was right in his observations that the case laws relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the assessee's case.
The Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd vs The Commissioner Of ... on 8 April, 1960
13. The assessee's learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Tribunal Bombay Bench 'A' in the case of E (P.) Ltd. (supra). The facts of this case are also different from the facts of the assessee's case and, therefore, that decision is not helpful to the assessee.