Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: interest tax act 1974 section 19 revision of order prejudicial to revenue Court: chennai Page 1 of about 52 results (0.162 seconds)

K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1996)135CTR(Mad)176; [1996]220ITR657(Mad)

..... :on failure of assessing officer to make enquiry as expected, commissioner was justified in invoking provisions of section 263 because order passed as such by the assessing officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.held :in the order passed by the tribunal, it was shown that the commissioner came to the conclusion that the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because, the assessing officer has not conducted enquiry with regard to the sale consideration ..... :1974-75 & 1975-76income tax act 1961 s.263 revision ..... the act for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the ito is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. ..... the act, the cit can come to the conclusion that the order passed by the ito is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. ..... the act for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the ito was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. ..... ; (d) an explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the act it can help or assist the court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment; and e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a ..... :1974-75 & 1975-76income tax act 1961 .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Samarapuri Chetty

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1991)76CTR(Mad)77; [1992]195ITR371(Mad)

..... tribunal, therefore, held that the alleged assessment order dated march 11, 1976, was non est and that the commissioner could not treat a non est order as prejudicial to the revenue and pass an order under section 263 of the act. ..... , the commissioner of income-tax, looking into the file of the assessee, held in his order dated february 7, 1978, under section 263 of the act, that the abovesaid second assessment order of the income-tax officer dated march 11, 1976, was erroneous, in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. ..... in the abovesaid decision, this court held that the abovesaid order of assessment of the income-tax officer was in accordance with law and could not, therefore, be held to be erroneous and that the commissioner cannot revise such an order under section 263. ..... in reply to this argument, learned counsel for the revenue pointed out that there was no such circumvention at all because the assessment order related to 1974-75 and the first assessment order was made on december 23, 1975, and the second assessment order was made on march 11, 1976, that is, even within one year of the end of the said assessment year, and on that very date, ..... only in the return filed on january 5, 1976, (this must be the revised return filed on december 31, 1975), the assessee has admitted property income of ..... december 31, 1975, the assessee filed a revised return showing an enhanced income. ..... 2,500 while in the revised return, net agricultural income admitted is .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (i) Pvt ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1998]234ITR541(Mad)

..... the revenue has sought for a reference and the appellate tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, for our consideration : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstance's of the case, when an order of assessment is set aside under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, the power of the income-tax officer to make a fresh assessment is confined to the direction given by the commissioner ?' 5. mr. c. v. ..... since this has been done the orders were certainly erroneous and they would be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because in the long run, the total income would be reduced. ..... the assessee is a company and the original assessment in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 was completed under section 143(3) of the income-tax act, 1961(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act'), on september 17, 1975, determining the total income, after carrying forward the loss relating to the cashew department which was closed during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73. ..... the commissioner of income-tax thereafter initiated suo motu revision proceedings under section 265 of the act on the ground that the set off of loss from the defunct cashewnut business against the profit of the business in the manufacture and sale of pesticides was erroneous. .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. City Palayacot Co.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1980)15CTR(Mad)365; [1980]122ITR430(Mad)

..... (1) the commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the income-tax officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify.....'37. ..... , (1) that there was no order under section 217, which could be revised under section 263(2); (2) that the ito must be taken to have waived the interest, because he was empowered to do so, under the act read with the rules; and (3) that in any event the order of the ito should be considered as having merged with the order of the aac and the commissioner had no power to revise an order which had so merged with the order of the aac.5. ..... : [1974]97itr466(ker) , the kerala high court had to consider the question in the context of section 215 of the act. ..... : [1974]97itr466(ker) that the power to reduce or waive interest was a quasi-judicial act and that hence an order under section 215(4) must state the reasons for it. .....

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gnanagiri Trading Co.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1995]216ITR19(Mad)

..... hence, it cannot be said that the order of the ito in granting continuation of registration for the assessment years under consideration is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. ..... learned standing counsel appearing for the department submitted that the filing of the revised return was a clear admission, that, to that extent at least there was concealment of income and this profit had not been divided amongst the partners in the books of the firm ..... cit pointed out that there was concealment only on the basis of the admission by the firm by filing the revised return and the partners offering the undistributed portion in their wt returns. ..... for the same reason the commission which was actually paid was added back, for the purpose of the wealth-tax of the partners, and even in those wealth-tax proceedings no action for the concealment of wealth had been taken. ..... 263 of the act on the ground that registration should not have been continued by the ito as neither the true profits nor the book profits of the firm had been distributed amongst the partners according to the terms of ..... the assessee furnished the full details of the names of the persons to whom commissions were paid for the year 1974-75. ..... april, 1974. ..... 1974-75 also, the ito continued the registration on the basis of the assessee's application in form no. 12 dt ..... 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee-firm, consisting of seven partners, was carrying on business in paper and other accessories and also had an ink-selling agency .....

D. Padmanabhan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1985]156ITR751(Mad)

..... filed under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, the assessee seeks a direction from this court to the tribunal to refer the following question to this court : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the commissioner of income-tax had jurisdiction to act under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, as it could be said that prima facie the assessment order was erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue ?' 2. ..... the commissioner of income-tax finding that the order of the income-tax officer determining the cost of acquisition of all the shares on the basis of the market value as on january 1, 1964, to the prejudicial to the revenue, initiated proceedings under section 263 of the income-tax act and after giving show-cause notice to the assessee, determined by his order dated december 22, 1982, the total cost of acquisition of the ..... after dealing with the rival contentions, held that is the order of the income-tax officer in adopting the market value as on january 1, 1964, uniformly for all shares, that is, for the original as well as bonus shares, is prejudicial to the revenue, the commissioner of income-tax had jurisdiction to invoke section 263 of the act. ..... is justified in upholding the jurisdiction of the commissioner of income-tax under section 263 of the income-tax act. ..... later, the assessee revised the calculation and worked out the capital ..... later, in the year 1974, he had acquired 756 .....

N. Seetharaman Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2008)216CTR(Mad)238; [2008]298ITR210(Mad)

..... revision of orders prejudicial to revenue: (1) the commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceeding under this act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing ..... the relevant sections 263 and 264 of the income tax act dealing with revisional powers of the commissioner of income tax are extracted for adjudication of the issue as to whether the assessing officer is empowered to pass an order prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, in a proceeding emanating under revisional jurisdiction of the commissioner of income tax under section 264 of the act.263. ..... reported in : [1998]234itr541(mad) , the commissioner of income tax initiated suo-moto revision proceedings under section 263 on the ground that the losses of the cashew department and the losses of the hessian department could not be set off against the profits of the insecticides department for and from the assessment year 1974-75. .....

V. Jayaraman Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1986]17ITD229(Mad)

..... have raised several grounds to the effect that the orders passed by the wto were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to warrant revision under section 25(2) and the value of the remaindermen could be equated to the total value of the property excluding the life interest of the life tenants and the revision order indirectly extended the time limit for completion of the ..... of the departmental valuation of the interest of the remaindermen, the commissioner considered that the orders passed by the wto were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of section 25(2). ..... the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the commissioner was not justified in exercising his jurisdiction under section 25(2) and, consequently, setting aside the assessments holding that they were erroneous insofar as they were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. ..... member -these appeals by the two separate remaindermen of the property at jail road, coimbatore are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience as the issue involved is similar and arises from similar orders passed by the commissioner under section 25(2) of the wealth-tax act, 1957 (the act).2. ..... [1974] 33 stc 147, that the valuation report of the dvo obtained after the assessments were completed by the wto did not form part of the records on which the wtos order was passed and, consequently, the commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the assessments under section 25(2).7 .....

Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms.Amal Generators Ltd.

Court : Chennai

..... in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 263 of the income tax act, the commissioner of income tax (appeals) sought to revise the order, placing reliance on the decision of the income tax appellate tribunal, special bench, mumbai reported in [1996] 217 itr itat reports 51 (cadell weaving mill co. ..... , given the fact that the commissioner of income tax (appeals) has jurisdiction to revise the orders which are prejudicial to the revenue, and for this purpose, section 263 requires the commissioner to call for and examine the records available at the time of examination by the commissioner. ..... it is a matter of record that the only ground on which the commissioner exercised his jurisdiction to interfere with the order was that the assessee was not having any right to transfer its interest in tenancy and hence, rights being personal, the compensation received has to be considered as income assessable at the hands of the assessee.10. ..... in case he proceeds thereunder after hearing the assessee in pursuance of the notice given to him, then the appeal filed by the assessee under section 253(1)(c) of the act cannot be treated on the same footing as an appeal against the order of the appellate assistant commissioner passed in the assessment proceedings, where both the parties have been given the right of appeal. ..... admittedly, after 1974, there was no renewal of the lease in favour of the assessee. .....

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1996)130CTR(Mad)275; [1995]215ITR928(Mad)

..... , 1896 circular interest-tax act, 1974 - 7% tax on interest, loans and advances the interest-tax act, 1974, enacted by parliament recently, envisages the levy of a special tax at 7% on the total amount of interest, accruing or arising to banks every accounting year. ..... since the assessee-bank used to collect this tax amount from the borrowers and paying the same as tax under the interest-tax act, 1974, by diversion by overriding title, the assessee has no interest over this amount. ..... if once this collection does not come under the purview of interest, as contemplated under the interest-tax act, 1974, then no tax under the said act can be levied. ..... on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted as under : under the interest-tax act, 1974, interest was levied at 7% on the interest collected by the assessee-bank. ..... the facts arising in the present case would go to show that the tax was levied under the interest-tax act, 1974, against the assessee in respect of the tax collected from its borrowers and credited the same in the books of account under the head 'special tax accounts'. ..... the assessee is paying the advance tax under the interest-tax act, 1974, every three months. ..... in order to elucidate this point, learned standing counsel relied upon a decision in cit vs . ..... in order to support this contention, learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the decision in cit vs . .....