Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.21 seconds)
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 26 September, 1990 cites

Renusagar Power Company Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, 'A' Ward And Anr. ... on 19 July, 1978

15. The IAC (Assessment) proceeded with the assessments. During those proceedings he found that there were number of other items also in which according to him, income had escaped assessment but which had not been mentioned at the time of issue of notices under Section 148/147(a). He felt free to bring those items to tax, since there was no specific restraint in respect of those items in the order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, consequently he assessed those other items as well. In appeal the learned CIT (Appeals) discussing the judgment of the Hon' ble High Court in detail gave a finding and directed the IAC (Assessment) to delete of the additions where there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. He had given this finding on the ground that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was binding on the department as the department had not preferred an appeal against the said decision. In the said decision the Hon'ble High Court while restraining the revenue from assessing certain items had given out the reasonings and the said reasonings were binding on both the parties. He further held that the alleged reasoning was that the department was not free on the basis of a notice under Section 147(a) to reopen and assess on certain items which had been disclosed fully and truly along with material facts necessary for the assessment by the assessee. The revenue, being aggrieved, has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi vs Rao Thakur Narayan Singh on 30 October, 1964

In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (supra) had gone to the extent that even if an order had been passed against revenue by the Tribunal, by mistake and it has become final by not going in appeal. The revenue/ assessing officer was bound to follow that order irrespective of the mistake committed by the Tribunal. It is the principle of finality which has to be respected. With all these facts and observations, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) was perfectly correct and justified and in fact, the order of the assessing officer almost bordered at the stage of contempt of Hon'ble High Court. The issues are, therefore, decided accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 103 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next