Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.38 seconds)Section 153C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Promy Kuriakose on 14 July, 2016
iv. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in not
considering/ discussing regarding the binding
precedents CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society
(2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC); Manish Maheshwari vs. Assistant
CIT, reported in (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC); CIT vs. Promy
Kuriakose, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 597 (Ker); Pepsi
Foods P. Ltd vs. ACIT, reported in (2014) 367 ITR 112
(Delhi); Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd vs. ACIT and another,
reported in (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi), which were
submitted before the Appellate Tribunal, during the
course of hearing?
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Acit, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi on 3 December, 2018
In fact the very
distinction between section 153C and section 158BD
(although section 158BD is not mentioned) is indicated by
the following observations of the Division Bench in SSP
Aviation Ltd. (supra) (page 188 of 346 ITR):
M/S. Super Malls Private Limited. vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 8 on 5 March, 2020
Super Malls case:
Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 19 May, 2015
5.4. He relies on the judgments reported in Super Malls
Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 , and Pepsi
Foods P.Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,2 and Principal
1
(2020) 4 SCC 581
2
[2014] 367 ITR 112 (Delhi)
ITA Nos.2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019
-16-
Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.S Software 3 . Therefore, in the
absence of satisfaction recorded by the officer who searched the
premises, the assessment under Section 153C of the Act is illegal and
without jurisdiction. He prays for setting aside the order of
assessment on the sole legal ground comprehensively argued in the
appeal.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-18 vs M/S. N.S. Software (Firm) on 18 April, 2018
(Emphasis added)
S.N Software case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Assam Oil Co. Ltd. on 11 June, 1980
6.1 He refers to and relies on the judgment reported in
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Assam Oil Co. Ltd 4 and
Commissioner of Income Tax v. G.M Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd5 to
pronounce on the objection raised by the assessee. Therefore, he
objects to the raising of, altogether, a new ground in the appeal. He
further contends that appreciating the grounds raised by the
assessee, and conclusions recorded by the Authorities, this Court
appreciates them as findings of fact and does not verify, for the first
time viz. whether the satisfaction as contemplated under Section
153C is recorded or not by the officer who searched the premises of
4
(1982) 133 ITR 204 (Cal.)
5
(2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC)
ITA Nos.2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019
-18-
E. Shamsudeen.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. on 10 December, 2002
6.1 He refers to and relies on the judgment reported in
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Assam Oil Co. Ltd 4 and
Commissioner of Income Tax v. G.M Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd5 to
pronounce on the objection raised by the assessee. Therefore, he
objects to the raising of, altogether, a new ground in the appeal. He
further contends that appreciating the grounds raised by the
assessee, and conclusions recorded by the Authorities, this Court
appreciates them as findings of fact and does not verify, for the first
time viz. whether the satisfaction as contemplated under Section
153C is recorded or not by the officer who searched the premises of
4
(1982) 133 ITR 204 (Cal.)
5
(2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC)
ITA Nos.2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019
-18-
E. Shamsudeen.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Kabul Chawla on 29 March, 2016
Here
the Assessing Officer's note nowhere reflects whether any
document was seized, on application of his mind, disclosed
that it belonged to the assessee, and if so, its prima facie
nature. Whilst an Assessing Officer of the searched party and
that of the individual under section 153C may be the same,
nevertheless, at the stage of sending notice under section
153C, the Assessing Officer has to record a specific reason or
reasons, why the mate rial seized from the other person has
a nexus to the assessee, to whom the notice under that
provision is addressed. In this case, this never happened.
Thus, for the previous years, the rule in CIT v. Kabul Chawla
[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), ie., that in the absence of any
incriminating materials, the previous years' assessments
cannot be disturbed, applies.