Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1997 1997 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 281 to 282 of 282 Records

• 1997 (6) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of notices issued under sections 16, 16A, and 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to invoke section 17 of the Act.
  3. Application of the period of limitation for issuing notices under section 17.
  4. Reopening of assessment based on property valuation discrepancies.
  5. Validity of notice issued under section 16A of the Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The appellant, as karta of a Hindu undivided family, filed voluntary returns under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The first respondent accepted the returns and passed orders under section 16(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notices were issued under section 17 of the Act in February 1991 to assess the escaped wealth for the mentioned assessment years. The appellant challenged these notices through writ petitions which were dismissed by a single judge, leading to writ appeals against the order.
  
  The appellant contended that the notices were without jurisdiction and beyond the prescribed time limits. The court noted that the amended provisions of section 17, effective from April 1, 1989, governed the case. The period of limitation for issuing notices under section 17 was linked to the net wealth chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment. The court accepted the respondent's argument that the notices were valid as they were issued within the seven-year period for the relevant assessment years.
  
  Regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to invoke section 17, the court emphasized that the officer must have a reason to believe that the property had escaped proper assessment, whether due to underassessment or undervaluation. The court highlighted that the officer should not exercise the power arbitrarily or in bad faith. The appellant's reliance on previous judgments was considered in light of the amended provisions of section 17.
  
  The court also addressed the notice issued under section 16A of the Act, noting that the appellant had filed objections and the Valuation Officer had submitted a report. As the court found the notice under section 17 valid, it held the notice under section 16A to be valid as well, as it was issued after reopening the assessment proceedings.
  
  Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the single judge's decision that the appellant could present objections before the Assessing Officer, who would address them in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in the matter.
  
  In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the notices issued under sections 16, 16A, and 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, based on the jurisdictional requirements and the period of limitation. The court emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to have a valid reason to believe that the property had escaped proper assessment before invoking section 17. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory safeguards and procedures in tax assessment matters.

  ---

• 1997 (6) TMI 1
  
  The High Court of Bombay ruled that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the decision in CIT v. Deejay Hatcheries [1995] 211 ITR 652. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

  ---

1 ....1112131415