Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.25 seconds)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Sbm Motors (P) Limited, Guwahati on 23 April, 2024
cites
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii vs Sfil Stock Broking Ltd on 27 April, 2010
In the said decision, decisions in the case of Sarthak Securities Company Private
Limited (supra) and SFIL Stock Broking Limited (supra) was distinguished by giving the
following reasons:
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax ???Ii Etc. ... vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. on 23 December, 2011
a. CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. &Ors. [(2012) 248 CTR ( Del ) 33,
(DHC)]
b. CIT vs. Insecticides [(India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del.)]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case [1961] 41 ITR 191, the apex court clearly held that
once the primary facts are before the assessing authority he requires no further assistance
by way of disclosure. It was observed by the apex court that:
Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer-Ward 8(4) & Anr. on 21 July, 2011
47. There is another recent judgment dated 21.7.2011 of this Court in Signature
Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ITO [W.P.(C) No. 8067 of 2010 on dated 21-7-2011]. That was also a
case where the notice was issued on the basis of information received from Directorate,
Income Tax (Investigation). The Court first set out the approach that is to be adopted in
such cases, by mentioning as under in para 12:
Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer-Ward 7(3) on 18 October, 2010
In the said decision, decisions in the case of Sarthak Securities Company Private
Limited (supra) and SFIL Stock Broking Limited (supra) was distinguished by giving the
following reasons:
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Atul Jain [Along With Ita No. 1385 Of ... on 23 May, 2007
Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decisions in CIT v. Atul Jain,
299 ITR 383 (Del), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd (supra), Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd.
v. CIT, 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company, 174 Taxman 444 (Del) and
eventually held thus: -
M/S Jay Bharat Maruti Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 April, 2009
Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decisions in CIT v. Atul Jain,
299 ITR 383 (Del), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd (supra), Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd.
v. CIT, 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company, 174 Taxman 444 (Del) and
eventually held thus: -