Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.33 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr on 1 March, 2011
Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) and the same has not been reversed by
higher Forum, cannot be brushed aside.
Orient Crafts Ltd. vs C.I.T., New Delhi on 5 March, 2018
26. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras has referred to earlier decision of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and also to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra)
and also in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra).
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Rajasthan State Industrial ... vs Acit, Jaipur on 23 February, 2018
The decision of Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers
(P) Ltd. (supra) is prior to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DCIT
Vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 63 taxmann.com 177
(SC) and is dated 17.04.2015.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
26. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras has referred to earlier decision of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and also to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra)
and also in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra).
Amin'S Pathology Laboratory vs P.N. Prasad, Joint Commissioner Of ... on 17 September, 2001
23. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed
reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Amin's
Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N. Prasad, JCIT (supra). It may be noted that the said
decision was in respect of assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the
Act, wherein the reopening was upheld holding it to be not a case of change of
opinion on the part of Assessing Officer, since he had not opined in respect of an
item representing unpaid purchases. Reliance placed upon by the learned
Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the said case is misplaced since
29
ITA No.608/PUN/2014
ITA No.623/PUN/2014
CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015
the issue before us is not case of change of opinion but case of reason to believe
for escapement of income and the absence of tangible material.