Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.24 seconds)
Bhopal Stud And Agricultural Farm vs Income-Tax Officer on 13 August, 1985 cites

H.A. Shah & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Excess ... on 13 September, 1955

Ltd.'s case (supra) nor of the Orissa High Court in Belpahar Refractories Ltd.'s case (supra) but referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in H.A. Shah & Co.'s case (supra) for a different purpose. In view of the binding nature of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision and in view of the fact that there was an agreement between the learned members that no new facts had come to the knowledge of the ITO, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision would be applicable and according to that authority, the ITO cannot be permitted to change his view. On question No. 1, therefore, I am in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 115 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Belpahar Refractories Ltd. on 16 August, 1976

3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee are two-fold. Relying on the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. Belpahar Refractories Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 610. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that when the income/loss of the assessee is assessed in the hands of the individual members during the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79, there is no reason for change of decision on the part of the ITO, when the facts of the case are the same and no fresh facts have come to the light of the ITO by which he can change his earlier decision. As laid down by their Lordships of the Orissa High Court in the aforesaid case though rule of res judicata is not applicable in income-tax proceedings and each year's assessment is separate, there are two exceptions to the rule, namely, an earlier decision on the same question cannot be reopened unless that decision is arbitrary or perverse or arrived at without due enquiry. The second limitation is that the effect of revising the earlier decision should not lead to injustice and the Court may prevent an assessing authority from doing something which would be unjust and inequitable.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhilai Engineering Corporation Pvt. ... on 16 July, 1981

1. Whether, on the facts on record, the Income-tax Officer having assessed the legal heirs of Nawab Rashid-ur-Zafer Khan individually according to their shares as per Muslim law of the income from stud business for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 can deviate from his original stand and assess them as an association of persons contrary to the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Bhilai Engg. Corpn. (P.)
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Bombay vs Smt. Indira Balkrishna on 14 April, 1960

9. In the facts of the present case, on the death of Nawab Saheb in 1961, had the five heirs continued the activities as they were being earlier carried on, without more, certainly it could be said that the five heirs could not be termed as an AOP under the Act. However, some of these five heirs took steps to incorporate a private limited company which was so incorporated on 11-12-1962. To this private limited company, all the five heirs transferred the assets and liabilities of the activities the five heirs were carrying on after the death of Nawab Saheb till such time of the transfer of the assets and the liabilities to the limited company. From 12-12-1962 till 27-9-1968 (the private limited company went into liquidation with effect from 28-9-1968) the private limited company was carrying on the business. After the company was liquidated, one finds that it could not be that Muslim law brought these five persons together. They came together by their own act (sic) be operation of any law which could give to the erstwhile shareholders the profits which the limited company owned, that transfer by the limited company to the five heirs of the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile business carried on by the private limited company, was not an act over which they had no control. To receive such assets and liabilities, if any, of the undertaking of the limited company (sic) activities jointly was the conscious act of the five heirs. It is this conscious act of the five heirs which takes the assessee's case out of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Balkrishna's case (supra). As I understand it, to these facts aptly apply the observations in B.N. Elias, In re. [1935] 3 ITR 408 (Cal.) by the Supreme Court and italicised in paragraph No. 6 above and reproduced once again for emphasis :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 209 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 3 Next