Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar ... on 16 October, 1962
In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Malegaon Electricity Co. Ltd., , the same High Court dissented from the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar, .
Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 14 December, 1960
7. This decision of the Supreme Court has been interpreted by the High Courts in different ways. The Madras High Court appears to have construed the word "information" appearing in Section 34(1)(b) in very wide terms. We may refer only to three judgments of that court: (1) In Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1961] 42 I.T.R. 547 (Mad.), it was held that:
Family Of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 15 February, 1962
(2) In Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1963] 48 I.T.R. 314 (Mad.), it was held that:
Canara Industrial And Banking ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore on 6 March, 1962
In Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1964] 51 I.T.R. 479 (Mys.), the Mysore High Court held that if income had escaped assessment owing to the failure of the Income-tax Officer to understand the true implication of a notification, and the Income-tax Officer later on finds that on a correct interpretation of the notification the income was liable to be assessed, he can take proceedings under Section 34 for assessment of such income; the word "information" in Section 34 was wide enough to apply to such a case.
Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 10 March, 1962
In Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1964] 52 I.T.R. 962 (All.), the Allahabad High Court held that:
Dharam Vir Virmani vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Simla. on 20 September, 1961
11. A Division Bench of the Punjab High Court has taken the view in Dharam Vir Virmani v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1962] 46 I.T.R. 602 (Punj.), that where the Income-tax Officer did not accept the share income from certain firms returned by the assessed but at the same time did not postpone the completion of the assessment to await the assessment of the firm and proceeded to complete the assessment ignoring the share income with a view to carrying out necessary rectification on receipt of information about the assessed shares of profit or loss from the assessment of the firms, it was open to the Income-tax Officer to re-open the assessment under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act after receipt of information regarding the assessment of the firms.
Ram Kishan Oil Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 21 April, 1964
In Ram Kishan Oil Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1965] 56 I.T.R. 186 (M.P.), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following an earlier decision of the same court in Income-tax Appellate Tribunal v. B.P. Bramji and Co., [1946] 14 I.T.R. 174 (Nag.), held that an Income-tax Officer cannot take any action under Section 34 merely because he intended to change his view or to hold an opinion different from that of his predecessor on the same set of facts and that, if the predecessor of the Income-tax Officer did not apply his mind to the question of deduction of the interest amount and his successor did, that does not mean that the successor of the Income-tax Officer came into possession of information justifying reopening of assessment under Section 34(1)(b).
Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay vs B. P. Byramji And Co. on 23 March, 1945
In Ram Kishan Oil Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1965] 56 I.T.R. 186 (M.P.), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following an earlier decision of the same court in Income-tax Appellate Tribunal v. B.P. Bramji and Co., [1946] 14 I.T.R. 174 (Nag.), held that an Income-tax Officer cannot take any action under Section 34 merely because he intended to change his view or to hold an opinion different from that of his predecessor on the same set of facts and that, if the predecessor of the Income-tax Officer did not apply his mind to the question of deduction of the interest amount and his successor did, that does not mean that the successor of the Income-tax Officer came into possession of information justifying reopening of assessment under Section 34(1)(b).
Arvind N. Mafatlal vs T.A. Balakrishnan, Deputy Controller ... on 30 January, 1967
In Arvind N. Mafatlal v. Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, [1968] 67 I.T.R; 449 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, which is analogous to Section 34(1)(b) of the Act.