Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta vs Burlop Dealers Ltd on 21 January, 1971
While coming to that conclusion, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court had referred to and followed a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 130wherein reference has been made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 and CIT v. Burlap Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609. In the above cases before the Hon'ble High Courts of Calcutta and Orissa the approval was given by means of a rubber stamp only, above the signatures of the Officers concerned. Following those decisions, we hold that there is no valid sanction of the C.B.D.T. as laid down in Section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and so the consequent initiation of the proceedings by the ITO are without jurisdiction.
R.K.Upadhyaya vs Shanabhai P. Patel on 28 April, 1987
6. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the papers filed before us and the case law cited. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) the issue of notice under Section 148 within the period of limitation is sufficient. Its service before the period of limitation is not necessary. Since the present case the notice under Section 148 was issued on 24-3-79 i.e. well before the expiry date of 31-3-79, the proceedings under Section 148 are well-founded. They are not time barred. Further, the assessee argued that since the value of the jewellery which has been taken at Rs. 49,000 in the Gift-tax assessment dated 22-10-83, is below Rs. 50,000, the assessment proceedings under Section 148 were not valid as per Section 149(l)(a)(ii) cannot be accepted. This is because the words in that section are "income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,000 or more". The final determination of the value/ amount is not relevant
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Govinda Choudhury And Sons vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward "A" And Ors. on 2 May, 1975
In the case of Govinda Choudhury & Sons v. ITO [1977] 109 ITR 370 (Ori.) wherein the proposals sent by the Income-tax Officer for initiating reassessment proceedings the Commissioner did not write in his own hand writing 'yes', but the word was affixed by means of a rubber stamp, it was held that there was no valid sanction as laid down in Section 151(2) and that the consequent initiation of proceedings by the Income-tax Officer would be without jurisdiction.
Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee vs Income-Tax Officer, "B" Ward And Ors. on 17 March, 1972
While coming to that conclusion, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court had referred to and followed a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 130wherein reference has been made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 and CIT v. Burlap Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609. In the above cases before the Hon'ble High Courts of Calcutta and Orissa the approval was given by means of a rubber stamp only, above the signatures of the Officers concerned. Following those decisions, we hold that there is no valid sanction of the C.B.D.T. as laid down in Section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and so the consequent initiation of the proceedings by the ITO are without jurisdiction.