Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Eastern Coalfilelds Ltd., vs Acit, Circle-2, Asansol, Asansol on 26 July, 2017 cites

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006

2. For that, without prejudice to the above and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of I.Tax (Appeals), ought to have adjudicated the Ground of Appeal before him in favour of the appellant, as decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323 relied on by him, does not bar the appellate authority to consider the issue even if no revised return have been filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1246 - Full Document

Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors on 25 November, 2002

3. From a perusal of the above grounds it is clear that these are grounds on merit, however, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the legal issue raised by the assessee to allow the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal on the ground that the AO has not disposed of the objections filed by the assessee against the decision of the AO to reopen the assessment as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO & Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, has held that the reopening is bad in law since the procedure as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that assessee's objection in respect to reopening has to be disposed of by speaking order has not been followed and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of assessee. We note that in the grounds raised before us, which has been reproduced (supra) the department has not challenged the aforesaid decision of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the revenue does not have any grievance of the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal on the legal issue. Therefore, in any way the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal is not under challenge before us. So, the grounds raised by the revenue in any way is academic, therefore, we are not inclined to adjudicate the grounds above so, the appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1767 - Full Document

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs Jt. Cit on 28 February, 2002

"After examining-the rival submissions, we are of the view that the point at issue need not detain us much since we have the benefit of the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT reported in (2002) 260 ITR (AT) page 1 (Nagpur). The judgment in fact is a lengthy one and spans numerous pages of the report in question. In perusing the judgment we find that the facts are absolutely identical and the Nagpur Bench by a detailed discussion on facts as also the case law, allowed the entire claim, observing in the process, at page 66, as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 158 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

S.R. Koshti vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 December, 2004

Moreover, in S. R. Koshti Vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held, inter alia, that authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. The Hon'ble High Court observes that tax can be collected only as provided under the Act and that if an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Constitutional courts, we are inclined to admit the additional ground raised before us and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide in accordance to law afresh the additional grounds which stands admitted after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 119 - Full Document
1