Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1999 1999 (2) 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 461 to 465 of 465 Records

• 1999 (2) TMI 5
  

  Expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act could not extinguish the debt but it would only prevent the creditor from enforcing the debt - hence mere entry in the books of account of the debtor made unilaterally without any act on the part of the creditor will not enable the debtor to say that the liability has come to an end - no merit in this appeal - appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

  ---

• 1999 (2) TMI 4
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Section 144B to assessments/reassessments under Section 147.
  2. Extended period of limitation under Explanation 1(iv) of Section 153 for assessments/reassessments under Section 147.
  3. Procedural requirements and safeguards for assessees under Sections 144B and 147.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Applicability of Section 144B to Assessments/Reassessments under Section 147:
  The core issue was whether the provisions of Section 144B, which involve forwarding a draft order to the assessee and obtaining directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, apply to assessments and reassessments made under Section 147. The Tribunal had initially held that Section 144B applied only to assessments under Section 143(3) and not to those under Section 147. However, the High Court of Delhi disagreed, holding that Section 144B's procedural safeguards also applied to assessments and reassessments under Section 147. This view was supported by similar judgments from other High Courts, such as Madras, Punjab and Haryana, and Calcutta, although contrary views were held by the Kerala and Bombay High Courts.
  
  2. Extended Period of Limitation Under Explanation 1(iv) of Section 153 for Assessments/Reassessments Under Section 147:
  The second issue was whether the 180-day extension provided under Explanation 1(iv) to Section 153 for completing assessments was applicable to assessments and reassessments under Section 147. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the extended period of limitation was indeed available for such assessments. The Court reasoned that Section 144B, being a procedural safeguard, should apply to all assessments, including those under Section 147, thereby justifying the extended period.
  
  3. Procedural Requirements and Safeguards for Assessees Under Sections 144B and 147:
  The Court analyzed the procedural requirements under Sections 144B and 147. Section 144B mandates that if an Income-tax Officer proposes a variation in the income returned by the assessee that is prejudicial and exceeds a certain amount, a draft order must be forwarded to the assessee. If the assessee objects, the draft order and objections must be sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who issues binding directions after considering the objections. This procedure is intended to safeguard the interests of the assessee. The Court emphasized that these procedural safeguards must be followed even for assessments and reassessments under Section 147, as indicated by the language in Section 148, which states that the provisions of the Act apply as if the notice were a notice issued under Section 139(2).
  
  The Court also addressed arguments against this interpretation. It rejected the contention that Section 144B should not apply to Section 147 assessments due to the specific language of Section 144B referring to assessments under Section 143(3). The Court clarified that the phrase "so far as may be" in Section 148 implies that the procedural steps outlined in subsequent sections, including Section 144B, must be followed for assessments under Section 147. The Court also dismissed concerns about the incongruity of requiring higher authority sanction for issuing notices under Section 148 but only Inspecting Assistant Commissioner oversight for the actual assessment, noting that different considerations apply at different stages of the assessment process.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court concluded that Section 144B applies to assessments and reassessments under Section 147. Consequently, the extended period of limitation provided by Explanation 1(iv) to Section 153 is available for such assessments and reassessments. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment that procedural safeguards under Section 144B must be observed in assessments under Section 147, thus providing additional time for the completion of these assessments.

  ---

• 1999 (2) TMI 3
  

  Reassessment - When the matter came before the High Court, the reference was answered in favour of the assessee and the order passed by the ITO on reassessment was set aside - High Court was justified in its view in answering references in favour of assessee - HC was justified in concluding that the order of the Assessing Officer reopening the earlier order and passing a fresh assessment order is unsustainable

  ---

• 1999 (2) TMI 2
  

  Even though the machinery has not been actually used in the business at the time when the assessment was made, the same had been treated as a business asset and it was purchased only for the purposes of the business - Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the interest paid by the assessee on loans taken from the bank for the purchase of machinery, which was never used in the assessee's business, is an allowable deduction in computing the total income of the assessee

  ---

• 1999 (2) TMI 1
  
  The appeal was filed against penalties imposed for delay in depositing service tax. The appellant argued that they were new to service tax and had submitted the required returns on time. The appellate authority set aside the penalties, citing provisions favoring the appellant.

  ---

1 ....2021222324