Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.67 seconds)

Megha Kalpesh Shah , Mumbai vs Dcit -Cc-8(1) , Mumbai on 17 November, 2021

b) Similar ratio has been laid down in the cases of PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra)(Del) ,CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (Del)(Supra), PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT and vice-versa (Mum ITAT) (supra), Geetanjali Space Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) 26.2. Therefore, on this count also, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A). In our considered view, the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can not be considered as incriminating material found in the course of search. This is an undisputed position of law that in case of unabated assessment year, no addition can be made in absence of any incriminating materials found during the course of search. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by series of decisions which are dealt with as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs Dcit Circle-1 Kota, Kota on 31 July, 2024

The ld. AO has based his case just on assumptions and presumptions without bringing on records any positive evidence or cogent reason in support of his observations as the sundry debtors was not part of business though found at business premises only. It is also the settled legal position that no addition can be the basis of suspicion, assumptions' and presumption. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer 24 ITA No. 511/JP/2024 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1