Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. on 12 March, 1964
As far as the first point is concerned, it requires consideration of statutory requirements contained in section 147(b) of the 1961 Act itself. Before that section can be applied and the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction under that section, (1) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year; (2) that reason must be in consequence of information in his possession, and (3) it is not disputed that decisions of court have settled that the information referred to above must come into the possession of the Income-tax Officer subsequent to the original assessment. Consequently, the question for consideration in the present case will be, whether these three requirement have been satisfied in the present case or not. As a matter of fact, the crucial point that was urged before us and which appears to have been argued before the Tribunal as well as the other authorities was that there was no information which the Income-tax Officer came into possession of subsequent to the original assessments so as to enable him to invoke his powers under section 147(b) of the 1961 Act and that all that he did was to have a second look over what had been done previously when the original assessments were made and to form a different opinion, or, in other words, he merely changed his opinion and there was no information as a consequence of which he had reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment. Therefore, we shall first consider the question as to whether the Income-tax Officer had come into possession of information subsequent to the original assessment or not in the present case.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mir Mohd. Ali, Bus Owner, Vellore on 24 April, 1964
We have already extracted the portion of the order of the Tribunal dealing with the submission made on behalf of the revenue which referred to the audit note. That audit note itself in its turn is stated to have specifically referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165. While referring to that case the audit note itself would appear to have pointed out that that decision would not be applicable to the present case because that decision dealt with additional depreciation and the present case dealt and development rebate and that notwithstanding that the audit note would appear to have suggested that the withdrawal of the development rebate in the instant case might kindly be considered.
Section 35 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 14 December, 1960
Though the Tribunal does not record a specific finding that it is the receipt of the audit note which constituted the 'information' contemplated by section 147(b) of the 1961 Act, still the way in which the Tribunal has referred to the submissions made on behalf of the revenue would appear to indicate that it had accepted that contention. However, we are unable to hold that any such information constituted the motivation for issuing the notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act. In the first place, neither the audit note nor the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officers on the respective dates referred to already were placed before the court and, therefore, this court has no opportunity to test the validity of the argument with reference to the contents of the note as well as the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officers. Secondly, if the department or the Tribunal relied upon this audit note, it was totally unnecessary to rely upon the decision of this court in Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1961] 42 ITR 547 (Mad) in support of the action taken by the Income-tax Officer. Thirdly, even the said audit objection could not have constituted a ground to make the Income-tax Officer entertain a belief that the income had escaped assessment. We shall now explain our reasons for taking this view.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Dinesh Chandra H. Shah And Ors. on 27 August, 1971
That mere change of opinion is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment is so well settled that the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah [1971] 82 ITR 367, 371 stated :