Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
AY 2016-17
where assessee has claimed any new deduction or made any new claim
which was not there in the return of income as alleged by the Ld. Pr.
CIT. According to him, it is only a case where the assessee has rectified
the defect in the computation of income during the assessment
proceedings by way of letter before the Ld. AO. According to him,
rectification in the computation of LTCG was made in the course of
assessment proceedings in order to comply with the provisions of
section 55(2)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the law laid down in the case
of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not
applicable since the facts are different and distinguishable. Per contra,
Ld. CIT, DR placed reliance on the order of Ld. Pr. CIT.
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
10.1. Looking at the second limb as to whether the actions of the AO
can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, one has to
understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held
that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be
read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Their
Lordships held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order
of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of
9
ITA No.166/Kol/2021
Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1