Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) it has been held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under Section 263 (which is similar to Section 25B of Wealth-tax Act) is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It was further observed that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely- (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. It has also been observed that if due to the erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. According to the Hon'ble Court, the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. In the instant case, there remains no doubt that the order of the WTO was erroneous as he has not passed the order in compliance to the provisions of Wealth-tax Act, particularly Clause (6) of Section 16A of Wealth-tax Act which has been referred to above.
Section 34 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Swarup Vegetable Products Industries ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 August, 1990
In the case of Swamp Vegetables Products Industries Ltd. v. CIT 187 ITR 412 it has been held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that if the AO had accepted the contention of the assessee erroneously and that too without making proper enquiry, the Commissioner had power to set aside the assessment order and send the matter for fresh assessment if he was satisfied that further enquiry was necessary and tha the order of ITO was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Section 16 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
C.I.T., West Bengal Ii, Calcutta vs M/S. Electro House on 2 September, 1971
12. In ground Nos. 2 & 3 the validity of the order passed by the learned CWT is challenged on the ground that the CWT had not initiated the proceedings on his own initiative but upon the suggestion of the subordinate authorities. In this regard objection was also taken by the assessee in reply dated 8th February 1994 a copy of which is available at pages 3 to 6 of the paper book. It is found that on 28-1-1994 a notice was sent from the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi which was signed by the ACIT Shri O.P. Chaudhary. However, a subsequent notice was sent by the Commissioner himself on 24-2-1994 as is mentioned at page 2 of the order of learned CWT. It is also found that the assessee was given full opportunity by the CWT at the time of proposing action Under Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act. Hence, it is not the case of the assessee that no opportunity was given to her. So far as the issue relating to issuance of notice is concerned, in the case of CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the requirement of Section 33B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 held that the provisions did not prescribe any notice to be given. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhagat Shyam And Co. on 21 November, 1990
23. The argument of the learned counsel for the assessee was that the WTO had considered the relevant material i.e. the value of the plot estimated in earlier year and since there was no material change in the facts the WTO was justified in taking the valuation of the earlier date as a guiding factor. In our view this contention cannot be accepted. The valuation of the earlier year i.e. A.Y. 1987-88 was not relevant for A.Y. 1988-89 particularly when valuation for this assessment year was done by the competent officer after following the procedure laid down as referred to above.
1