|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 255 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 55
Issues:
Initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on incorrect depreciation claims and alleged non-disclosure of material facts.
Analysis:
The court addressed the issue of reopening the assessment for the years 1980-81 to 1985-86 based on notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer alleged that the assessee incorrectly claimed depreciation on buildings that were rented out without conducting any business activities in those buildings. The authority believed that the assessee failed to disclose material facts regarding the use of the properties, leading to the incorrect allowance of depreciation. This omission was considered as income escaping assessment under Explanation 1(c) of section 147 of the Act. The court noted that the notices were issued based on information obtained during the assessment for the year 1986-87, revealing that the buildings were rented out without any business operations. The Revenue supported the order relying on the reasons provided by the authority in a letter dated April 11, 1989.
The court considered the arguments presented by the assessee's counsel, who contended that full and true disclosure was made regarding the nature of the business, including the use of trade marks, licensing agreements, and letting out factory premises for business purposes. The counsel highlighted that the business activities were clearly stated in the income statements and returns filed by the assessee. It was emphasized that the nature of the business, including the letting out of factory buildings, was consistently disclosed and acknowledged by the assessing authority in subsequent years. Therefore, the court concluded that the condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the Act, regarding the failure to disclose primary facts, was not satisfied in this case.
The court further analyzed that no new information was obtained by the assessing authority after the completion of the assessments, which could justify the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. It was established that the authority lacked the necessary grounds to reopen the assessments for the years 1980-81 to 1985-86. Consequently, the court held that the proceedings initiated without meeting the conditions precedent were void and ordered the quashing of the notices issued under section 147 of the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment years. The petition was successful, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 54
Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Income-tax for assessment year 1991-92 under section 80HHC(2)(a) of Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a 100% export-oriented unit, sought to quash the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated January 20, 1994, and requested fresh orders in accordance with the law, along with a stay on assessment proceedings for the year 1991-92. The petitioner's application for extension of time under section 80HHC(2)(a) was based on the receipt of export sale proceeds beyond the stipulated six months period. The court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to a deduction in computing total income for the delayed receipts.
The court analyzed the relevant section 80HHC(2)(a) which mandates that sale proceeds of exported goods should be received within six months unless extended by the Commissioner for reasons beyond the assessee's control. The court examined the findings of the Commissioner, who denied the extension beyond September 30, 1990, citing strict implementation of the clause. However, the court emphasized that each case should be evaluated based on its facts and circumstances. The burden lies on the assessee to demonstrate reasons for the delay beyond the six-month period.
The court scrutinized the reasons provided by the petitioner for delayed receipts, including market recession and logistical issues causing payment delays. It noted that the Commissioner's rejection lacked proper reasoning and failed to show a diligent application of mind. The court emphasized that the Commissioner's satisfaction must be based on valid reasons and disclosed adequately. The judgment highlighted the need for a balanced approach to incentivize exports while ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order to the extent of the amount not pressed by the petitioner and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the application in line with the court's observations and legal principles. The writ petition was partly allowed, with costs imposed on the parties. The court ordered the issuance of a certified copy of the judgment to the petitioner's counsel upon payment within one week, concluding the legal proceedings.
-
1995 (4) TMI 53
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 85,000 as income from undisclosed sources.
2. Entitlement to a deduction of Rs. 84,000 confiscated by customs authorities as business loss.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved the assessment year 1965-66 where the assessee was found in possession of Rs. 84,000 and two air tickets worth Rs. 10,185. Initially, the assessee claimed the amount was from the sale of smuggled gold, but later changed the statement to indicate it was a loan from his brother's firm. The Income-tax Officer added Rs. 1,50,000 as income from undisclosed sources and estimated a profit of Rs. 10,185 from the gold business. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 1,60,185 for smuggling business was not supported, but concluded that the Rs. 84,000 found with the assessee was income from undisclosed sources. The court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the explanation provided by the assessee was unsatisfactory, and there was no legal infirmity in treating the amount as undisclosed income.
Issue 2:
The second question regarding the deduction of Rs. 84,000 as a business loss was deemed irrelevant as the addition was not linked to any specific business activity of the assessee. The court noted that the addition was solely based on the unexplained possession of cash and air tickets, and therefore, there was no basis for allowing any loss or expenditure related to distinct business activities. Consequently, the court answered the first question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the second question against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, awarding costs to the respondent.
This judgment highlights the importance of providing satisfactory explanations for income sources during assessments and the implications of unexplained possession of significant amounts of cash in tax matters.
-
1995 (4) TMI 52
The petitioner sought a direction for respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the appeal and stay application. The court found it not necessary to intervene and disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to move the Income-tax Tribunal for early consideration of the stay application.
-
1995 (4) TMI 51
The High Court of Gujarat quashed an order by the Income-tax Officer withholding a refund of Rs. 7,57,660, stating that the order lacked justification and was contrary to the law. The court allowed the petition and set aside the order without any costs. (Case citation: 1995 (4) TMI 51 - GUJARAT High Court)
-
1995 (4) TMI 50
Issues:
1. Petitions filed for quashing orders of interest and penalty by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. Fulfillment of conditions under section 273A of the Income-tax Act.
3. Discretionary power of the respondent to waive interest and penalty.
4. Judicial exercise of discretionary power.
5. Non-application of mind by the respondent in granting partial waiver.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Gujarat pertained to petitions filed by two partnership firms seeking to quash orders dated October 31, 1994, and January 19, 1995, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad, regarding the levy of interest and penalty. The petitioners contended that they had fulfilled all conditions under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and were entitled to a complete waiver of interest and penalty. They argued that the respondent had only partially waived the interest and penalty without providing reasons or affording them an opportunity of hearing.
The court acknowledged the discretionary power granted to the respondent to waive interest and penalty under section 273A but emphasized that this power must be exercised judiciously and on sound principles. The court held that the discretionary power should not be arbitrarily exercised and that once the conditions for waiver are met, the authority cannot refuse to grant it. In this case, the court found merit in the petitioners' argument that the respondent had not applied his mind, failed to provide reasons for the partial waiver, and did not refute the presence of requisite conditions for full waiver.
The court referred to previous decisions, including one by the Supreme Court, to support the principle that when the authority is satisfied that a case warrants waiver, it should not grant only a partial waiver without sound reasons. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. The court highlighted the importance of the respondent applying his mind and providing reasoned decisions when exercising discretionary powers to waive interest and penalty.
In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for the respondent to exercise discretionary powers judiciously and provide sound reasons for decisions regarding the waiver of interest and penalty under the Income-tax Act.
-
1995 (4) TMI 49
The High Court of Delhi dismissed a petition by the Revenue related to the assessment year 1985-86 under the Income-tax Act. The court declined to refer six questions of law to the court, stating that only question No. 1 was considered a question of fact. The petition was dismissed with no costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 48
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India.
3. Discrepancy in appellate decisions.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural matters.
Summary:
1. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners, trustees of a family trust, were called upon to pay penalties for not filing income tax returns for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The trust's only income was from property co-owned with other trusts and Hindu undivided families. A receiver was appointed by the High Court of Bombay to manage the property, and the trust had informed the Income-tax Officer (ITO) about this, requesting communication with the receiver for filing returns. Despite this, the ITO issued show-cause notices and imposed penalties, which were upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners contended that the impugned action was ultra vires, contrary to law, and violative of Articles 14 (equality before law), 265 (taxation only by authority of law), and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution of India. They argued that the penalties were imposed despite the receiver's appointment and the pending application for transfer of the case to Bombay.
3. Discrepancy in appellate decisions:
The petitioners highlighted that in similar circumstances, another Appellate Assistant Commissioner had granted relief to other co-owners by setting aside penalties, recognizing the appointment of the receiver as a reasonable cause for not filing returns. However, the appeals of the present petitioners were dismissed by a different Appellate Assistant Commissioner, leading to contradictory decisions. The revisional authority also dismissed the revision applications, stating that the earlier favorable orders were not based on a correct appreciation of facts.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural matters:
The Department argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by filing an appeal to the Commissioner u/s 246 of the Act, which they did not avail. Instead, they directly approached the Commissioner by filing revision applications u/s 264. The court, however, noted that the petitions were filed after the revisional authority exercised jurisdiction and rule was issued by the court.
Conclusion:
The court found that the authorities committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record by not granting relief to the petitioners. The court held that there was reasonable cause for not submitting the returns in time due to the receiver's appointment and ongoing litigation. Consequently, the penalties imposed u/s 271(1)(a) were quashed and set aside. The petitions were allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 47
Issues involved: Quashing of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1989-90.
Summary:
The petitioner's assessment for the year 1989-90 was initially computed by the Assessing Officer, and after certain reliefs were granted by the appellate authority, the respondent recalculated the total income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 in 1994, prompting the petitioner to submit a return. The reasons recorded for this action included discrepancies in the computation of book profit under section 115J, such as incorrect set off of investment allowance. The court emphasized that for initiating proceedings u/s 148, the Assessing Officer must have valid reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, and these reasons must be clearly documented. The court found that the reasons provided in this case did not meet the necessary conditions for issuing the notice u/s 148. It was concluded that the notice dated March 18, 1994, was not sustainable and was therefore quashed, with no costs imposed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 46
Issues involved: Petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding assessment year 1985-86, questioning the correctness of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263 of the Act.
Assessee's Share Capital: The assessee, a public limited company, incorporated in 1983, floated share capital of Rs. 20 lakhs during the relevant assessment year, with alleged subscriptions of Rs. 1,84,05,250. The Income-tax Officer initially accepted the return of loss under section 143(1) of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, upon review, found the Assessing Officer's actions to be prejudicial to revenue interests and erroneous in law due to lack of proper investigation. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the assessment for a fresh determination.
Tribunal's Decision: The assessee appealed the Commissioner's decision before the Tribunal, which, based on precedent, held that even if the subscribers to the share capital were not genuine, the amount of share capital could not be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. Relying on the decision in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd., the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's order under section 263 of the Act and ruled in favor of the assessee.
Reference Application: The Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision by filing a reference application under section 256(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal rejected the application, citing a previous dismissal of a special leave petition by the Revenue in another case, CIT v. Kwick Travels.
Court's Decision: In the absence of representation from the assessee, the court directed the Tribunal to refer a reframed question based on the Full Bench decision in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that even if the subscribers to the share capital were not genuine, the amount of share capital could not be considered undisclosed income of the assessee. The petition was disposed of without costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 45
Issues:
1. Quashing of the complaint in Complaint Case No. 287 of 1992
2. Order taking cognizance under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
3. Criminal proceedings against the petitioners
Analysis:
The petitioners sought to quash a complaint in Complaint Case No. 287 of 1992 and the order taking cognizance under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that petitioner No. 1, a partnership firm, engaged in leasing equipment and made a disallowed commission payment, leading to penalty proceedings. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 276C and 277. The petitioners contended that the appeal allowed by the appellate court nullified the basis of the complaint, as the reassessment order accepted their claim. The Department argued that criminal proceedings could continue despite the appellate authority's decision. The court considered precedent cases like K. T. M. S. Mohammed v. Union of India and Uttam Chand v. ITO, emphasizing that findings favoring the assessee can nullify criminal liability. The court also referred to Banwarilal Satyanarain v. State of Bihar, where the prosecution was quashed due to a favorable assessment order. The court held that continuing the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the court's process, given the nullification of the facts constituting the offence by the appellate authority.
The court highlighted that the appellate order exonerated the petitioner-firm and allowed their claim on reassessment. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that findings favoring the assessee can impact criminal liability. The court referred to a case where the prosecution was quashed due to a favorable assessment order, drawing parallels to the present situation. The court distinguished a Division Bench decision relied upon by the Department, emphasizing the inapplicability of the decision to the current case under the Income-tax Act. Ultimately, the court concluded that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
In conclusion, the court allowed the application, quashing Complaint Case No. 287 of 1992 and the order taking cognizance. The court ruled that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners should not continue, considering the nullification of the facts constituting the offence by the appellate authority. The judgment was delivered by Judge S. K. Chattopadhyaya of the High Court PATNA, citing relevant legal principles and precedents to support the decision.
-
1995 (4) TMI 44
The High Court of Kerala directed the revisional authority to expedite the disposal of revision petitions filed by the petitioner within three months. Pending the revision, all further proceedings for recovery of agricultural income-tax were stayed. The petitioner's objections regarding the assessment process were noted, and the court emphasized the need for a fair consideration by the revisional authority.
-
1995 (4) TMI 43
Issues: Valuation of building for income tax assessment
1. Valuation Discrepancy:
The petitioner, a co-owner of a building, "Kandonkulathy Towers," faced valuation discrepancies during income tax assessment. The construction cost, as per the petitioner's books, was Rs. 52,16,035, while an Approved Valuer estimated it at Rs. 53,30,672. However, the District Valuation Officer valued it at Rs. 1,30,41,085, leading to a significant difference. The Assessing Officer reopened assessments based on this report.
2. Assessment Proceedings:
The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Valuation Cell of the Income-tax Department, resulting in an inflated valuation of the building. Despite objections from the co-owners and a deduction granted, the Assessing Officer's orders lacked reasoning. The co-owners appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who set aside the assessment, emphasizing the lack of reasoning in the District Valuation Officer's report.
3. Fresh Valuation Request:
Following the first respondent's directions, the Assessing Officer requested a detailed valuation from the District Valuation Officer. However, the Officer refused, prompting the petitioner to file a representation before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration). While awaiting action on the representation, the petitioner received an assessment order based on the erroneous valuation report.
Judgment:
The High Court quashed the assessment order (exhibit P-5) and directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the petitioner solely based on a valid valuation report free from the errors highlighted by the first respondent. The Court held that assessing the petitioner based on a flawed valuation report was improper, emphasizing the need for a correct valuation for income tax assessment purposes. The original petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
-
1995 (4) TMI 42
The High Court of Delhi directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a reframed question of law regarding the calculation of annual letting value of a property to the court for its opinion. The court declined to refer questions 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, stating they were not appropriate for referral. (Case Citation: 1995 (4) TMI 42 - DELHI High Court)
-
1995 (4) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Challenge to the action taken by the respondent under section 132(5) for the retention of seized articles.
2. Interpretation of section 132(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Validity of seizure under section 132 after completion of regular assessment.
4. Application of section 69A in the case of possession of assets by the assessee.
5. Jurisdiction of the appropriate authority under section 132 after assets have been lawfully released.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in a business involving precious metals and stones, was subjected to a search by the Central excise authority in 1985, resulting in the seizure of gold ornaments and cash. Subsequently, an order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act was passed, estimating undisclosed income. The petitioner challenged the retention of the seized articles by the Income-tax Department after they were lawfully released by the Central excise authorities. The court examined the jurisdiction of the respondent under section 132(5) and the legality of the action taken post-regular assessment.
2. The court analyzed section 132(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that for jurisdiction under this provision, possession of assets representing undisclosed income is a prerequisite. It was noted that the petitioner's possession of the assets in question had been disclosed during the regular assessment for the relevant assessment year. The court held that the mere return of assets to the petitioner did not nullify the fact of possession and disclosure, rendering the action under section 132(5) unwarranted.
3. Referring to the completion of regular assessment in 1988, the court deliberated on the timing of seizure under section 132. It highlighted that seizure under this provision pertains to a pre-assessment stage and cannot be initiated post-assessment. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the court reiterated that once an assessment is completed, further proceedings under section 132 are untenable. Therefore, the retention of assets after regular assessment completion was deemed improper.
4. The court discussed the application of section 69A concerning undisclosed assets. It noted that the assets found in the petitioner's possession in 1985 were appropriately dealt with during the assessment for the relevant year. The court emphasized that the same income cannot be subjected to assessment for multiple years, reinforcing the inapplicability of section 132 proceedings post-regular assessment completion.
5. Lastly, the court concluded that the authorization under section 132(1) and subsequent seizure of assets were unwarranted after the completion of regular assessment. It directed the release of the seized articles to the petitioner, maintaining the authority of the respondent to act for recovery purposes. The court's decision quashed the seizure authorization and affirmed the petitioner's right to the returned assets without costs.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's interpretation of relevant provisions, the timing of actions under the Income-tax Act, and the significance of disclosure and regular assessment in determining the legality of asset seizures and retentions.
-
1995 (4) TMI 40
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that contributions made under a scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 are not subject to Part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the contributions made by the assessee to the provident fund of its managing director, but the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee as the provident fund was established under a statutory scheme. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that no further recognition under the Income-tax Act was required for allowing the contributions.
-
1995 (4) TMI 39
The petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was filed by a private limited company and its managing director challenging Circular No. 681 issued by the respondents regarding section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court declined admission and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to approach respondent No. 4 for further action. The court did not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the case.
-
1995 (4) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure on transport of goods and marine insurance.
2. Interpretation of section 35B(1)(b)(iii) concerning exclusion criteria for different heads of expenditure.
3. Applicability of the phrase "wherever incurred" in section 35B(1)(b)(iii) to expenditure on carriage of goods outside India and insurance of goods in transit.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure on transport of goods and marine insurance:
The assessee, a registered firm exporting leather goods, claimed an export markets development allowance for the assessment year 1974-75 and subsequent years, including 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer initially declined this claim for 1974-75, which was later allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but subsequently disallowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the weighted deduction for expenses on transport of goods and marine insurance. The court examined section 35B(1)(a) and clause (b) of the Income-tax Act, which provide for a deduction of one and one-third times the amount of specified expenditure, excluding capital or personal expenses. Item (iii) of clause (b) specifies expenditure on the distribution, supply, or provision outside India of goods, services, or facilities, excluding expenditure incurred in India in connection therewith, or on the carriage of goods to their destination outside India, or on the insurance of goods while in transit.
2. Interpretation of section 35B(1)(b)(iii) concerning exclusion criteria for different heads of expenditure:
The court noted that various items in clause (b) of section 35B(1) required expenditure to be incurred wholly and exclusively on activities like advertisement or publicity outside India, obtaining market information, etc., without necessarily being incurred outside India. However, item (iii) specifically excludes expenditure incurred in India in connection with the distribution, supply, or provision outside India. The court referred to V. D. Swami and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 425, which emphasized that weighted deduction is not available for expenditure incurred inside India. The court clarified that exclusionary clauses in section 35B(1)(b) are confined to item (iii), and other items in clause (b) should be interpreted independently to determine if the expenditure is related to the specific item, regardless of where it is incurred.
3. Applicability of the phrase "wherever incurred" in section 35B(1)(b)(iii) to expenditure on carriage of goods outside India and insurance of goods in transit:
The court addressed the interpretation of the phrase "wherever incurred" in item (iii). It noted that the phrase "not being expenditure incurred in India" applies to the first part of item (iii) concerning distribution, supply, or provision outside India, but not to the second part concerning expenditure on carriage of goods to their destination outside India or on the insurance of goods while in transit. The court emphasized that imposing the qualifying expression "not being expenditure incurred in India" on the second part would render the phrase "wherever incurred" meaningless. The court concluded that the expenditure on carriage of goods and insurance should not necessarily be incurred outside India. The court also highlighted the legislative intention to cover transport costs for export incurred in India to ensure fair competition among manufacturers, irrespective of their location. The court found that the Tribunal erred in law by requiring the expenditure on carriage and insurance to be incurred outside India.
Conclusion:
The court answered the questions in favor of the assessee, ruling that the Tribunal committed an error of law. The assessee is entitled to the weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iii) for expenditure on transport of goods and marine insurance, regardless of whether the expenditure was incurred in India or outside India. The court emphasized the need for a balanced interpretation that aligns with the legislative intent and promotes fair competition among exporters. There was no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 37
Issues:
Challenge to reassessment notices for assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, as the legal representative of the deceased assessee, challenged reassessment notices issued by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80. The petitioner contended that the valuation of the land in question had been accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer previously. However, subsequent developments, including the enactment of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, led to a revision of the valuation. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax set aside the assessment order and directed reassessment based on the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Tribunal initially remanded the matter to the Commissioner due to lack of material but later upheld the valuation adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer. Despite the Tribunal's decision in favor of the petitioner, reassessment notices were issued under section 17 of the Act for the year 1979-80.
Regarding the first contention raised by the petitioner, it was argued that the notices issued by the respondent were time-barred under section 17 of the Act. The petitioner claimed that the period for issuing notices had expired, and subsequent amendments to the law could not be utilized by the authorities. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions to support this argument. However, the respondent contended that the notices were not time-barred and could be issued based on the Tribunal's findings.
The second objection raised by the petitioner was that after the Tribunal's decision in favor of the petitioner, it was improper for the respondent to issue reassessment notices. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the valuation adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer should be upheld, and the provisions of section 17 should not be invoked after a favorable decision for the petitioner on the merits. The Court agreed with the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that once the Tribunal decided in favor of the petitioner, the issuance of reassessment notices was unwarranted.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notices and any related proceedings. The Court held that the reassessment notices were not valid after the Tribunal's decision in favor of the petitioner. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1995 (4) TMI 36
The petitioner challenged the order allowing the complainant to examine witnesses before evidence is presented. The court cited previous cases to support the view that additional witnesses can be called and their evidence recorded. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that accepting the petitioner's argument would narrow the scope of the law and lead to injustice. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 3127 to 3129 of 1994 were also dismissed.
....
|
9911796707
