Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80M in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case under 1922 Income Tax Act. Coming to the Income Tax Act, 1961, the words "by reason or omission or failure on the part of the assessee" have been omitted from the section. This means in case where there is no failure on the part of the assessee to file the return of income and no concealment, till the assessing officer may take action under section 147 if he had reason to believe that the income had escaped the assessment. Of course, the reason to believe as it was in the original section and interpreted by the court still applies and should be given effect. The 'reason' should be a belief of a reasonable man which should be supported by the facts, justice and fair play.
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
3. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the section had undergone a change of great magnitude and, therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the Supreme Court decision still lays down the law. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 1TR 297 (SC), the learned Departmental Representative submitted that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence from the judgment of the Supreme Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be complete law declared by the court, The learned Departmental Representative, quoting the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, submitted "the judgment must be read as a whole and observations from the judgment have to be considered in light of the questions which were before the court." "A decision of the Supreme Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a latter case, the court must carefully try to ascertain the true principles laid down by the decision."
Praful Chunilal Patel vs M.J. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner ... on 19 February, 1998
In the case of Prafful Chundal Patel v. Makwana, Asstt. CIT (1998) 5 DTC 270 (Guj-HC) : (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that formation of belief by the assessing officer is not necessarily a judicial decision but an administrative decision. At the initiation of the proceeding by reopening, it does not determine anything at that stage. The reason may be the result of official information or his own investigation or may come from any source that he considers reliable. His reason is not to be judged by a court by the standard of what the ideal man would think, held the Gujarat High Court. The court further held that "he is the actual man trusted by the Legislature and charged with the duty of forming of a belief, for the mere purposes of determining whether he should proceed to collect what is strictly due by law and no other authority can substitute its standard of sufficient reason in the circumstances or his opinion or belief for him. "Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court further held - "Therefore, unless it is shown that the assessing officer never enquired into the matter at all or that he never honestly believed that a mistake has been made, the result of his investigation and initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act cannot be challenged on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The assessing officer has to determine the facts and the law in order to give him jurisdiction to proceed and if in the determination of this he goes wrong, the proper remedy for the assessee would be to go up in appeal and to have the case referred to the High Court under the provisions of the Act."