Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat jaipur Year: 1985 Page 2 of about 14 results (0.058 seconds)

Jun 19 1985 (TRI)

Jagannath Jeewanmal Woollen Vs. Income-tax Officer.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur

Decided on : Jun-19-1985

Reported in : (1986)17ITD107(JP.)

..... 954. accordingly, he forwarded a draft of the proposed order of the assessment to the assessee on 2-3-1982 under section 144b (1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (the act). the assessee did not file any objections and the assessment was, consequently, finalised as drafted. thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner (appeals) ..... if the assessee had filed objections, and they had been rejected by the iac, the assessee was entitled to file in appeal against the ultimate assessed income. in other words, the right of appeal is entirely different from the right to take objections under section 144b and in any case when there is ..... produce any contrary judgment of the tribunal even the one relied upon by the commissioner (appeals) but referred to the judgment of the madhya pradesh high court in cit v. gupta & sons (p.) ltd. [1984] 146 itr 506. in this case the question in dispute was whether the ito had the power to ..... be said to be file an aggrieved by the assessment order and, hence, it forfeited its right to file an appeal under section 246 of the act. the assessee has come up in second appeal before us.2. we have heard the representatives of the parties at length in this appeal. the representatives ..... condone the delay in making an application under section 146 of the act because there was no specific provision in the act and the high court was the view that he had no such power and if an application was not filed within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1985 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Chakka Bai Baid

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur

Decided on : Aug-26-1985

Reported in : (1986)15ITD328(JP.)

..... as to whether while issuing the notice under section 147(a) read with section 149(1)(a)(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act') and assessment made consequent thereof the income that is deemed to have escaped should be rs. 50,000 is only necessary while actually the addition that is made ..... for the relevant assessment year, where eight years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of that year, unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees fifty thousand or more for that year ; the reading of the above two ..... an addition to the assessment of a like amount. in no case, on the same material for the purpose of reopening the amount of income that has escaped assessment and that assessed could be different. he further submitted that even examination of the material it would only reveal that it ..... were issued. according to mr. s.s.ruhela, there is no pre-condition that the income that is finally assessed must include escapement of income of rs. 50,000 or more. what the act requires is that the income that is likely to exceed at the time of issue of notice is rs. 50, ..... sub-clauses gives us an indication that sub- clause (/) would apply to a situation where the income that has escaped assessment is less than rs. 50,000 and sub-clause (ii) would apply where the income .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1985 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Mishrilal Gordhanlal.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur

Decided on : Nov-14-1985

Reported in : (1986)17ITD958(JP.)

..... would be necessary. when that draft is made the assessee would be given an opportunity as is provided for under section 144a of the income-tax act, 1961 (the act) also. according to mr. ruhela, since 144a clearly provided that enhancement could be made by the iac over and above what the ito ..... their lordships observed thus in regard to the manner : "there is no question here that the requirements of section 28(1) (a) of the income-tax act were not completely fulfilled. if the appellants had not filed their return, as they were required by law to do, the omission would attract clause (a ..... without affording to the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. this opportunity was denied to the appellants, and, therefore, the order of the income-tax officer was vitiated by an illegality which supervened, not at the initial stage of the proceedings, but during the course of it. the order ..... directing the refund of the penalty, if recovered, cannot but be interpreted as correcting the error and leaving it open to the income-tax officer to continue his proceedings from the stage at which the illegality occurred. no express remand for this purpose, as is contended, was necessary. ..... course of the assessment proceedings, because the action will relate back to the time when the first notice was issued.in our opinion, the income-tax officer is well within his jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage at which the illegality has occurred and to assess the appellants to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1985 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Kisan Tractors.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur

Decided on : Mar-22-1985

Reported in : (1986)17ITD527(JP.)

..... properly explain their source of capital. in these circumstances, the utmost that the ito could have done was to add the unexplained investment in the income of these ladies. we, therefore, are of the opinion that the assessee was rightly entitled to registration as held by the commissioner (appeals). we accordingly ..... the benefits of partnership. the tribunal had found that neither a not b were engaged in the business of the firm and did not act as partners of the firm in reality. they were employees of d who was earlier running the business as a proprietary concern.nothing of this ..... or sleeping partner who was not generally interested in the conduct of the business and could not be expected to be aware of details. in addl. cit v. rahmat khan faizukhan [1985] 152 itr 676, the rajasthan high court laid down the conditions essential for registration and held that even if the ..... specified in the instrument of partnership. that case has, therefore, no bearing on the present issue. similarly, in young india mining & transport co. v. cit [1984] 149 itr 226 (delhi), a partnership firm had been constituted between a and b who were employees of d and ds minor children were admitted to ..... from which the partnership business was stated to have been started that was not a ground for refusing registration.still later in narnauli jewel corpn. v. cit [1985] 45 ctr (raj.) 30, the lady partner has made a wholly unsatisfactory statement before the inspector and the assessee did not produce her before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1985 (TRI)

Niranjanlal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur

Decided on : Oct-31-1985

Reported in : (1985)14ITD439(JP.)

..... 1. the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274(2), of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act') concerning the assessment year 1965-66 arose under the following circumstances : shri niranjanlal, the assessee, derives income from shares of three firms in which he is a partner. he has, for his individual assessment, followed diwali accounting year. of the firms from which he ..... of opinion, which is : whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty on the assessee could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961 2. the relevant facts are : the assessment relates to the assessment year 1965-66. the assessee had share ..... learned representative of the assessee that the assessee was minor till february 1964 and this is the first year of his assessment after he attained majority. until this year his income-tax affairs were being attended to by his guardian and this being the first year when he had , to look after his own affairs, this small mistake should not have been ..... treated as a deliberate act of concealment on the part of the assessee.3. it is not in dispute that the share income from changoiwala & co.was voluntarily disclosed by the assessee to the ito before the assessment. nor is it in dispute that .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //