Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.29 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay on 17 March, 1967
In the given case also, assessee has produced the details of sales
achieved by the agents by submitting item-wise, agent-wise details
before revenue authorities. Further, assessee has filed the relevant
books of account relating to agents, payment details, advance tax
compliance before authorities. It shows that assessee knows the
business he carries on and as per the Hon'ble High Court's
observation, it is settled law that revenue authorities cannot sit into
20
ITA Nos. 1430 to 1433/Hyd/15
Sunil Vishram Chawda
the shoe of the businessman. By referring to CIT Vs. Walchang and
Co (supra), in applying the test of commercial expediency for
determining whether an expenditure was wholly or exclusively for
business, the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view
of the businessman and not of revenue.
Cit vs Siddartha Trade Links Pvt Ltd on 8 December, 2011
10.9 In the case of CIT Vs. Siddhartha Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Printers House (P) Ltd. on 24 July, 2000
2. Apart from expressing its satisfaction as to the genuineness
of the transaction the ITA T has taken into consideration the
fact that commission has been paid and allowed in the past and
that the commission percentage is negligible. Ms. Bansal
contests this position. The total turnover of the assessee was
Rs. 68 crores before tax, inter alia of which included Rs. 25.68
crores of export turnover. The turnover we are concerned with
is stated to be Rs. 3.74 crores on which the commission has
19
ITA Nos. 1430 to 1433/Hyd/15
Sunil Vishram Chawda
been paid. It has been pointed out by Ms. Bansal that rather
than the stated 0.05 per cent the commission, the commission
works out to 1.5 per cent in relation to local sales and 7 per
cent as far as export turnover is concerned. Even then
according to us there remains no reason to doubt these
payments. It has been laid down in several decisions of the
Supreme Court that the ITAT is a final forum for findings of fact.
The High Court would intervene only if a finding appears to be
perverse, which we are unable to conclude in the / case in
hand."
M/S Chandigarh Overseas Private ... vs Addl. Cit(Tds), Chandigarh on 28 September, 2017
(4) In Satnam Overseas vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 329
ITR 237 (Delhi), the High Court held that the only reason which has been given
seeking reopening of the assessment for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 is that
suppression of sales has taken place on account of the fact that when average
price of the closing stock is multiplied with the quantity of the sales in the year
then the value of the sales would be at a higher figure, than declared by the
assessee. Clearly, there is no new material which is alleged to have come to
the notice of the Assessing Officer which has caused him to seek reopening of
the assessment. Admittedly, the reasons given for seeking reopening of the
assessment contains the expression 'perusal of the case record reveals' clearly
showing that it is on the basis of the same assessment record as was filed by
the assessee, during the relevant assessment years and also scrutinised by the
Assessing Officer before passing the orders under Section 143(3). Further, the
27
ITA Nos. 1430 to 1433/Hyd/15
Sunil Vishram Chawda
new logic, rationale and opinion which has been formed by the Assessing
Officer for seeking reopening of the assessment is nothing but a change of
opinion and a new approach to the existing facts and material which the
Assessing Officer could well have done during the regular assessment
proceedings of the relevant assessment years.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi vs M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd. on 29 March, 2016
(5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310
(Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were
before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment,
and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts,
it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for
permitting the Assessing Officer or his successor to reopen the assessment of
the assessee. The Honorable High Court further observed that if the entire
material had been placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the
time when the original assessment was made and the Assessing Officer
applied his mind to that material and accepted the view canvassed by the
assessee, then merely because he did not express this in the assessment
order, that by itself would not give him a ground to conclude that income had
escaped assessment and, therefore, the assessment needed to be reopened.
The assessee had no control over the way an assessment order is drafted.