Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.31 seconds)Avasarala Automation Limited vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 19 September, 2003
4.14 The learned Departmental Representative relied on judgment of jurisdictional High Court for the proposition that burden is on the assessee to prove that he is entitled to depreciation. Refer Avasarala Automation Ltd. v. P. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 178 (Kar.) The learned Departmental Representative pointed that the department has tried to ascertain the true facts in spite of non-co-operation from the assessee. The following efforts were made:
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975
Assessment is made under section 143(3) and such assessment is made after issue of notice under section 143(2). In the instant case, before issue of notice under section 148, no notice under section 143(2) had been issued and no assessment had been made under section 143(3). Intimation cannot be equated with assessment. For this proposition the learned Departmental Representative had rightly relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. case (supra) and of Gujarat High Court in Bharat V. Patel's case (supra). The department conducted survey under section 133A on the business premises of BSAL. Additional DI (Inv.) vide his letter dated 30-10-2000 such survey report along with annexures. The subject mentioned in the letter is :
Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 August, 1999
The department has not obtained the copy of order. Hence it cannot be said that BSAL has not given specifications of the items required. Hence no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee that normal procedure for procuring the assets by lessee has not been followed. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that case of Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. (supra) does not apply insofar as in the appellant's case the witnesses have been examined by the department and such evidences have been used against the appellant and it is only on the basis of such evidence which has been obtained through the examination, has interpreted against the appellant.
Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995
The decision in Sumati Dayals case (supra) does not apply to the appellant's case insofar as the surrounding circumstances and the test of human probabilities show that the transaction of the appellant is bona fide and genuine.
Dhansiram Agarwalla vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 November, 1992
6.9 Dhansiram Aggarwalla v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 : The learned Gauhati High Court held that if explanation of assessee is accepted in earlier year then same explanation cannot be rejected in subsequent years as a rule of consistency does apply to Income-tax proceedings, The revenue has taxed lease rentals in subsequent years. In case the revenue holds that it was only a financial lease. Then interest component lease rentals should have been taxed in subsequent years.
Kapurchand Shrimal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra ... on 28 August, 1981
6.1 Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 451 (SC) In this case the assessing officer made an assessment in the case of HUF without holding an enquiry into the validity of the claim of Hindu family that a partition has taken place among the members of the family. The following was question of law which was referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments made by the Income Tax Officer on the Hindu Undivided Family of Shri Kapoorchand Shrimal for the years under reference without passing order under section 25A was valid." The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at page 461 that the question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court does not appear to be comprehensive enough to decide the matter satisfactorily. The question made has to be read as including further question regarding the nature of the orders to be passed by the Tribunal if the orders of assessments are held to be contrary to law. In the light of the above, the order of assessment made by assessing officer was set aside and the Tribunal was asked to direct the assessing officer to make fresh assessment in accordance with law. In the instant case, there is no occasion to decide that the assessment has been made contrary to the provisions of law but are concerned only with the appreciation of evidences. Hence this case law is not applicable.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. on 20 January, 1995
6.3 CIT v. Rayala Corpn. (P.) Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 883 (Mad.) In this case reassessment notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee ignored the notice, the information as desired by the assessing officer was not furnished. the assessing officer therefore concluded best judgment assessment. The Tribunal took evidences brought in the first instance before it by way of affidavits on behalf of assessee and entertained arguments on behalf of assessee that there were some materials before the assessing officer and the affidavit filed by M.R. Pratap in the assessment year 1965-66 which was not considered by the Income Tax Officer. In the light of above facts, the matter was set aside. The learned High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the matter in all aspects strictly in accordance with law and for a decision whether the Income Tax Officer has committed any error in his best judgment assessment by relying upon the material that were available to him and drawing an inference from such material. This case is of no help to the revenue by implication it means the revenue cannot rely on the evidences placed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the first time.