Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (4.18 seconds)
Documents citing Chander-Mohan Mehta vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 January, 1999

Sh. Chander Mohan Mehra, Amritsar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1),, ... on 2 March, 2022

8. Considering the facts in totality regarding the interest-free funds available with the assessee, amount advanced which does not relate to the year under appeal, the fresh loan and advances as per the computation statement of the assessee as above, and Judgements cited, in our view, an interest could be disallowed on amount of rupees 4,24,000/- in light of the principles of business expediency. Accordingly, we direct the assessing 10 ITA No.237/Asr/2017 Chander Mohan Mehra v. ITO officer to restrict the disallowance of interest on Rs. 4,24,000 as against Rs 57,24,000/-, towards advances made by the assessee out of interest- bearing loans.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Mahavir Nagari Sahakari Pat ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 February, 2000

32. The decision of this Bench in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) is distinguishable on the facts and the ratio laid down in that case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In that case, it has been held that where an incriminating document is found, then it should be either accepted or rejected in toto. In the present case, no incriminating material has been found in the course of search. Further, the genuineness of application forms has been rejected in toto where the assessee has not been able to prove the same. Accordingly, that decision cannot be applied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Hanuman Poddar And Ors. on 11 July, 2005

In the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT (supra), the Tribunal observed that loose papers did not indicate the name of assessee. Therefore, loose papers by themselves did not lead to any conclusion and had no evidentiary value. Thus, the sum and substance of these decisions is that entries found on the loose papers without indicating the name of assessee and the nature of entries could not by themselves form the basis of addition until there is some material and evidence on record to corroborate that these represent undisclosed/unaccounted income investment or expenditure. No such material has been placed on record in the present cases. In fact, the cases of these assessees stand on stronger footing because these loose sheets were not recovered from the assessees and the names of these persons did not appear on the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 14 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Shri Mahavir Nagari Sahakari Pat ... vs Dy. Cit on 18 February, 2000

32. The decision of this Bench in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt CIT (supra) is distinguishable on the facts and the ratio laid down in that case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In that case, it has been held that where an incriminating document is found, then it should be either accepted or rejected in toto. In the present case, no incriminating material has been found in the course of search. Further, the genuineness of application forms has been rejected in toto where the assessee has not been able to prove the same. Accordingly, that decision cannot be applied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 38 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Dhunjibhoy Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 February, 2002

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. As stated above, a paper (which forms annexure to this order) was seized during the course of search at the premises of Dr. D.D. Tanna. This seized paper was produced before us, in original, by the learned senior Departmental Representative. The paper has two sides, the front side and back side. A perusal of the seized paper reveals that the front side of the paper contains entries which refer to the particulars of three flats and the figures in the middle portion refers to this particular flat. These notings are more in the nature of proposals and in reality, the entries which go to the root of the controversy are on the back side, which are self-evident and which were duly admitted by Dr. Tanna spontaneously during the course of statement recorded under Section 132(4). A paper found during the course of search has to be read as a whole--both sides of the paper--as held by this Bench in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327 : (1999) 71 TTD 245 (Pune). It is noted that in the paper book filed by the learned counsel only photocopy of the front page of the seized paper was filed, while he had conveniently omitted to file photocopy of the back page. The learned senior Departmental Representative. took pains for which we must compliment him to produce before us the entire seized paper and perusal of the seized paper clearly reveals that it had two sides. It was when the reverse side of the paper was confronted to Dr. Tanna, he in response to question No. 7 spontaneously submitted "It is very simple. I have to pay by cheque a sum of Rs. 6.55 lakhs as per agreement for purchase of flat at Pune from Somerset Developer....." Now, it is very naive on the part of the learned counsel to submit that the back side of the seized paper was never confronted to the assessee by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the CIT when he gave an opportunity to the assessee before approving the order of the AO, because the seized paper is the fulcrum point on which the whole case revolves and it is too much to say that such vital evidence on which the authorities below based their conclusions was not shown to the assessee. From the reading of the order of the AO and the note of the CIT, it is very clear that the seized paper with both sides was confronted to the assessee. We accordingly reject the argument of the learned counsel that the back side of the seized paper is a new piece of evidence and the same should not be admitted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajmal Lakhichand vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 March, 2000

In the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 71 ITD 245 (Pune) this Bench has held that a paper found during the search has to be read as whole. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer is not justified in picking a convenient portion of such judgment which is only in his favour and ignoring the portion which is in favour of the assessee. In this case, there is no doubt that the department on its own has not made any enquiries to prove that the assessee had purchased the contraband silver and it is also not proved that the assessee had made payments for the same in cash at the time of delivery. The department has based the entire addition on the findings of the customs authorities, but it has not given due weightage to the finding of the CEGAT that no payment was made by the assessee for the acquisition of the subject silver till the date of search and, therefore, if no payment is made, the question of making any addition under section 59/ 69C does arise at all. Paras 16.1 to 16.7 of the CEGAT's order support the contention that no payment whatsoever was made at the time of acquiring the subject silver. Further, it has never been the case of the DRI authorities that me assessee had made any such cash payment when the subject silver was acquired. We do agree with the contention of the learned senior D.R. that the findings given by the CEGAT can be used in the income-tax assessment, but, in our opinion, the order of the CEGAT should be followed in letter and spirit and not in the way the Assessing Officer has done by choosing those portions of the order of the CEGAT which are convenient to the department and ignoring the rest. As regards the contention of the learned senior D.R. that provisions of section 40A(3) are applicable in this case, we find that the learned CIT(A) has clearly held that provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable and the department is not in appeal against this finding of the C1T(A). Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the question of invoking this provision does not arise at all. The provision is to be invoked when the department has evidence with itself that the assessec has made payments in cash exceeding the limits prescribed in the section. Disallowance cannot be made merely on a presumption that the asscssee must have made payments in cash and that too exceeding the limits prescribed under the section. This proposition finds support from the decision of the 1TAT, Pune Bench in the case of Sharma Associates [1996] 217 ITR 1 ITAT (Pune). Thus, we do not agree with the learned senior D.R. that the above disallowance can be sustained under section 40A(3) because the department has not proved that the assessee has made payments in cash.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sadhu Ram And Sons vs Income Tax Officer on 18 July, 2005

He submitted that so-called papers found during the course of survey were loose sheets, which did not lead to any conclusion. These loose sheets without (sic) indicate debit or credit on either side. The same do not show whether the amount was received or paid. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal, Pune Bench, in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT (Inv.) (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327, the learned Counsel submitted that these were dumb papers. He submitted that these papers were not found kept under lock and key or under some special care or in the cash box. He further submitted that the affidavits of the farmers filed during the course of appeal proceedings were not verified by the AO. No enquiries were made by the AO to verify the contents thereof. He submitted that the addition made merely on the basis of suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhunjibhoy Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Dy. Cit on 18 February, 2002

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. As stated above, a paper (which forms Annexure to this order) was seized during the course of search at the premises of Dr. D.D. Tanna. This seized paper was produced before us, in original, by the learned Serial Departmental Representative. The paper has two sides, the front side and back side. A perusal of the seized paper reveals that the front side of the paper contains entries which refer to the particulars of three flats and the figures in the middle portion refers to this particular flat. These notings are more in the nature of proposals and in reality, the entries which go to the root of the controversy are on the back side, which are self-evident and which were duly admitted by Dr. Tanna spontaneously during the course of statement recorded under section 132(4). A paper found during the course of search has to be read as a whole-both sides of the paper-as held by this Bench in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune). It is noted that in the paper book filed by the learned counsel only photocopy of the front page of the seized paper was filed, while he had conveniently omitted to file photocopy of the back page. The learned Senior Departmental Representative took pains for which we must compliment him to produce before us the entire seized paper and perusal of the seized paper clearly reveals that it had two sides. It was when the reverse side of the paper was confronted to Dr. Tanna, he in response to question No. 7 spontaneously submitted "It is very simple. I have to pay by cheque a sum of Rs. 6.55 lakhs as per agreement for purchase of flat at Pune from Somerset Developer ....... Now, it is very naive on the part of the learned counsel to submit that the back side of the seized paper was never confronted to the assessee by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings and the Commissioner when he gave an opportunity to the assessee before approving the order of the assessing officer, because the seized paper is the fulcrum point on which the whole case revolves and it is too much to say that such vital evidence on which the authorities below based their conclusions was not shown to the assessee. From the reading of the order of the assessing officer and the note of the Commissioner, it is very clear that the seized paper with both sides was confronted to the assessee. We accordingly reject the argument of the learned counsel that the back side of the seized paper is a new piece of evidence and the same should not be admitted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 32 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ramanlal P. Chordia vs Astt. Cit on 2 July, 2001

In our opinion, if the receipt side is considered correct, then the payment side in diary No. 31 has to be considered as equally correct as per the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Hotel Kiran (supra) or Chander Mohan Mehta (supra). We, therefore, hold that as these entries of payments appeared in the diary, the interest of Rs. 95,620 is wrongly taxed in the hands of the assessee. This ground accordingly succeeds.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajmal Lakhichand vs Asstt. Cit on 24 March, 2000

In the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Assistant CIT (1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune-Trib), this Bench has held that a paper found during the search has to be read as whole. In our opinion, the assessing officer is not justified in picking a convenient portion of such judgment which is only in his favour and ignoring the portion which is in favour of the assessee. In this case, there is no doubt that the department on its own has not made any enquiries to prove that the assessee had purchased the contraband silver and it is also not proved that the assessee had made payments for the same in cash at the time of delivery. The Department has based the entire addition on the findings of the customs authorities, but it has not given due weightage to the finding of the CEGAT that no payment was made by the assessee for the acquisition of the subject silver till the date of search and, therefore, if no payment is made, the question of making any addition under section 69/69C does arise at all. Paras 16.1 to 16.7 of the CEGATs order support the contention that no payment whatsoever was made at the time of acquiring the subject silver. Further, it has never been the case of the DRI authorities that the assessee had made any such cash payment when the subject silver was acquired. We do agree with the contention of the learned senior Departmental Representative that the findings given by the CEGAT can be used in the income-tax assessment, but, in our opinion, the order of the CEGAT should be followed in letter and spirit and not in the way the assessing, officer has done by choosing those portions of the order of the CEGAT which are convenient to the department and ignoring the rest. As regards the contention of the learned senior Departmental Representative that provisions of section 40A(3) are applicable in this case, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly held that provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable and the department is not in appeal against this finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the question of invoking this provision does not arise at all. The provision is to be invoked when the department has evidence with itself that the assessee has made payments in cash exceeding the limits prescribed in the section. Disallowance cannot be made merely on a presumption that the assessee must have made payments in cash and that too exceeding the limits prescribed under the section. This proposition finds support from the decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Sharma Associates (1996) 217 ITR 1 ITAT (Pune-Trib). Thus, we do not agree with the learned senior Departmental Representative that the above disallowance can be sustained under section 40A(3) because the Department has not proved that the assessee has made payments in cash.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next