Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 244A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nirma P. Ltd. on 19 July, 2002
Now
on this reasoning, Tax Appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed at
the admission stage. This court has held in case of CIT Vs Nirma
Industries Ltd. ? T.A. No.632 of 2005 regarding implication of
dismissal of Tax Appeals which is binding on the lower authorities.
Hon?"ble Supreme Court dismissed S.L.P. No.557 of 2007 vide order
dt.5-4-2007.
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
Mr.
Soparkar has also argued that in view of the decisions of Hon?"ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83
and G.M. Mittal 263 ITR 245, CIT has no jurisdiction to revise the
assessment when A.O. takes one of the possible views. We agree with
this contention. We find that view taken by A.O. was correct and
hence CIT has no jurisdiction to revise the assessment.
C.I.T vs Kamalini Khatau on 9 May, 1994
"s
Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust 108 ITR 555 and in the case of CIT
Vs. Kamalini Khatau 209 ITR 101. In this case, revenue assessed
Ambica Trust and recovered due taxes including arrear demand through
KVSS. Revenue has, therefore, exercised option and assessed income
in the case of Ambica Trust. In the order passed by A.O.
dt.11.09.00, he has excluded income in the case of beneficiaries
which was already assessed in the case of Ambica Trust. We find that
the order of A.O. dt.11.09.00 has no infirmity. The same is in
accordance with the provisions of I.T. Act. It is neither erroneous
nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. CIT has wrongly revised
assessment u/s.263 of I.T. Act which was corrected by the Tribunal.