Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Arthur Anderson & Co vs The Assistant Commissioner Of on 29 March, 2010 cites

Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs Custodian & Ors on 13 May, 1998

9. Apart from the fact that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts, it will be necessary to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian 2 The Supreme Court, in the course of its judgment observed that under the Income Tax Act, 1961 the definition of tax under Section 2(43) does not include penalty or interest and that the concepts of tax, penalty and interest are different concepts under the Act. Justice Sujata Manohar speaking for a Bench of three Learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 67 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Amin'S Pathology Laboratory vs P.N. Prasad, Joint Commissioner Of ... on 17 September, 2001

8. Hence, the condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:16 ::: 11 when an assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) has not been fulfilled. The condition precedent as spelt out in the proviso to Section 147 is that the income must have escaped assessment by the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment for that Assessment Year. Absent compliance with the statutory condition precedent, the reopening of the assessment cannot be sustained. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Amin's Pathology Laboratory (supra) is distinguishable. In that case, the assessee had been following the accrual system of accounting for all items of expenditure except for all collections which were on cash basis. The Division Bench observed that a reading of the assessment order showed that the Assessing Officer failed to notice an important item viz. an amount of Rs.6.70 lacs which represented unpaid purchases. It was in this context that the Division Bench observed that the mere production of the balance sheet, Profit & Loss Account or account books would not necessarily amount to a disclosure within the meaning of the proviso. The facts in that case showed that the Assessing Officer had inadvertently ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:16 ::: 12 overlooked an entry representing unpaid purchases in respect of which he had wrongly granted a reduction and at the time when he passed the original order of assessment, he could not be said to have opined on that item. These were the distinguishing facts in that case.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 43 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1