CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

79 ITR 582Supreme Court of India1971#1538 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhanji Lavji authority for?

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed. The assessee is not obligated to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law, nor can reassessment commence if the AO drew a wrong legal inference from disclosed facts.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhanji Lavji · 79 ITR 582 · Section 147 · Section 148 · change of opinion · reassessment proceedings · full and true disclosure · primary facts · duty to disclose law · wrong legal inference · 1961 Act · 1922 Act

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 149Section 150Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 150(1)section 150(2)true and full disclosuresection 147(a)section 33(4)section 245hasection 150section 10(2)section 34(1)full and true disclosuresection 110test of enduring benefit

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhanji Lavji

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

…ot be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(v) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-taxv. Bhanji Lavji[1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also he mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2953/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

…ot be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(v) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-taxv. Bhanji Lavji[1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also he mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another tim…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 712/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anothe…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\n\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anot…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 709/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anothe…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…d assessment and such escapement was by\nreason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all\nmaterial facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid.”\n(v) CIT V/s Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nHeld that:-Reassessment under s.34(1)(a) of 1922 Act—Full and true disclosure-In original\nassessment, all primary facts were disclosed-It was stated that payments were received by\ncheques and transferred to Porbandar—ITO had passed an order in effect holding that assessee\nhad no income in British India chargeable to tax-He could not now…

RAYMIX CONCRETE INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2770/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mrs. Lekha, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 37

…edings, ld AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561. :-6-: ITA. No:2770 /Chny/2024 7. Further, ld.AR relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC) it was held that a mere change of opinion cannot form the basis. When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the ITO will not be entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Similarly, if he has raised a wrong legal inference from the facts disclosed, he will not, on that accou…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Mahendra Kumar Goyal ACIT/DCIT Vs. Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Central Circle-03, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asses…

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at another Pr…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\n\n65\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\n\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\n\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the ass…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 302/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anothe…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 301/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…be held liable because of this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), 65 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of 1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law. It may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment fo…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 300/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anothe…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anothe…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anothe…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\n\n65\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\n\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the asses…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 296/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…held liable because of this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified and at anothe…

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4