Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.30 seconds)

Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors on 25 November, 2002

5. As against this, Mr.B.B.Naik, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Authority, submitted that the petition should not be entertained because the petitioner was entitled to alternative remedy by way of appeal, etc., in case an adverse order was passed against the petitioner. That even otherwise, as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. I.T.O., reported in 259 ITR 19, when a notice under Section-148 of the Act is issued, the noticee is required to file return and thereafter, seek reasons for issuance of notice. That the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within reasonable time and on receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the said objections by passing a speaking order. It was, therefore, submitted that in the present case, the petitioner can raise its objections and the Assessing Officer was bound to deal with the same and dispose of the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1767 - Full Document

Praful Chunilal Patel vs M.J. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner ... on 19 February, 1998

22. The decision in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel vs. M.J.Makwana/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Revenue, instead of assisting the case of the Revenue, supports the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. This Court has specifically dealt with two distinct situations: one arising within the period of four years and another arising beyond the period of four years in the following words :
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 139 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next