Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 614 (2.87 seconds)
Documents citing Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956

Dcit, Jaipur vs Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. , Jaipur on 19 February, 2025

Thus, unless the parties are cross examined, it is not open to the department to simply discard these affidavits Our view is supported by judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless the person making the statement in the affidavit is cross-examined by the revenue, it is not open to the revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. The bench also noted that for the impugned addition of Rs. 11.40 crores made on account of non availability of high value 41 items of jewellery the proof that 30 items were sent on repairs and 11 items were traced on the same day and shown as to 290 ITA Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 151 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amrapali Jewels Pvt Ltd,Jaipur vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Jaipur on 19 February, 2025

Thus, unless the parties are cross examined, it is not open to the department to simply discard these affidavits Our view is supported by judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless the person making the statement in the affidavit is cross-examined by the revenue, it is not open to the revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. The bench also noted that for the impugned addition of Rs. 11.40 crores made on account of non availability of high value 41 items of jewellery the proof that 30 items were sent on repairs and 11 items were traced on the same day and shown as to 290 ITA Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 151 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain,Kota vs Acit, Central Circle, Kota, Kota on 11 September, 2025

19. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has accepted that he has advanced only Rs.10 lacs to Sh. Jugal Kishore Kaliya with support of an affidavit. In spite of this the lower authorities have made no effort to controvert the same from Sh. Jugal Kishore Kaliya. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 17 ITA No. 643 to 645/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17 2019-20) at Pg 187 held that the rejection of affidavit filed by assessee is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. Therefore, without controverting the affidavit of assessee that he only advanced Rs.10 lacs to Jugal Kishore Kaliya.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. ... on 18 January, 2016

43. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the CIT(A) dismissed claim of the assessee upholding the part disallowance on account of ASSF on incorrect assumption of facts and on the basis of perverse and contradicting finding and the same are not sustainable we may also pointed out that the facts narrated by the Managing Director of the assessee company in his affidavit remained uncontroverted and un-rebuted, therefore in view of dicta laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (supra) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hanutram Ram Prasad v. CIT (supra) the contents and facts narrated in the affidavit can be acted upon by the assessing officer as well as first appellate authority but the CIT(A) miserably fail to properly consider the contents of the affidavit and other relevant evidence which was produced before the lower authorities during the assessment and first appellate proceedings. Thus, conclusion of the CIT(A) cannot be held as sustainable and tenable and hence, we diminiss and demolish the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 40 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 18 January, 2016

43. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the CIT(A) dismissed claim of the assessee upholding the part disallowance on account of ASSF on incorrect assumption of facts and on the basis of perverse and contradicting finding and the same are not sustainable we may also pointed out that the facts narrated by the Managing Director of the assessee company in his affidavit remained uncontroverted and un-rebuted, therefore in view of dicta laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (supra) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hanutram Ram Prasad v. CIT (supra) the contents and facts narrated in the affidavit can be acted upon by the assessing officer as well as first appellate authority but the CIT(A) miserably fail to properly consider the contents of the affidavit and other relevant evidence which was produced before the lower authorities during the assessment and first appellate proceedings. Thus, conclusion of the CIT(A) cannot be held as sustainable and tenable and hence, we diminiss and demolish the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 40 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain,Kota vs Acit, Central Circle, Kota, Kota on 11 September, 2025

19. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has accepted that he has advanced only Rs.10 lacs to Sh. Jugal Kishore Kaliya with support of an affidavit. In spite of this the lower authorities have made no effort to controvert the same from Sh. Jugal Kishore Kaliya. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 17 ITA No. 643 to 645/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17 2019-20) at Pg 187 held that the rejection of affidavit filed by assessee is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. Therefore, without controverting the affidavit of assessee that he only advanced Rs.10 lacs to Jugal Kishore Kaliya.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain,Kota vs Acit, Central Circle, Kota, Kota on 11 September, 2025

19. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has accepted that he has advanced only Rs.10 lacs to Sh. Jugal Kishore Kaliya with support of an affidavit. In spite of this the lower authorities have made no effort to controvert the same from Sh. Jugal Kishore Kaliya. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 17 ITA No. 643 to 645/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17 2019-20) at Pg 187 held that the rejection of affidavit filed by assessee is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. Therefore, without controverting the affidavit of assessee that he only advanced Rs.10 lacs to Jugal Kishore Kaliya.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sidharth Marketing Services Ltd, vs Assessee on 21 December, 2011

10.2 In the aforesaid order the Tribunal has discussed various decisions including of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Rathi Finlease Limited; 215 CTR 429(MP), decisions from various High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court such as Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT; 30 ITR 181 (SC), CIT vs. Lovely Exports; 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Limited; 299 ITR 268 (Del), G.P. International Limited; 229 CTR (P&H) 86, Steller Investment Limited; 192 ITR 287 (Del) and Sophia Finance; 205 ITR 98 (Del). The share applicants in the case of the present appeal are the same which were also share applicants in the case of STL Extrusion (P) Ltd., who were found to be genuine by the Tribunal as their identity was not in doubt, therefore, the same applicant cannot be said to be bogus in the present appeal. However, the learned Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs.8,48,400/- on the plea that it is the own money of the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid decision of the Bench dated 10th May, 2010 (STL Extrusion Private Limited) was affirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional 18 High Court, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports; 216 CTR (SC) 195 clearly comes to the rescue to the assessee, consequently, we are of the view that if the Assessing Officer was apprehensive of any mala fide on the part of share applicant, he was at liberty to reopen their individual assessments, therefore, there is no justification to make the addition in the hands of the assessee, consequently, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 10.3. So far as the disallowance of Rs. 6,000/- out of telephone and communication expenses, Rs. 5,000/- out of vehicle repair and maintenance expenses, Rs. 3,000/- out of vehicle running expenses and Rs. 6,000/- out of travelling expenses is concerned, we find that these disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer as necessary bills and vouchers were not filed by the assessee, therefore, expenses were not fully verifiable. Even before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal, no evidence was filed in support of its claim, consequently, we find 19 no infirmity in the stand of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), therefore, on this count, we affirm his stand.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lucknow vs M/S Maa Raktdantika Contractors And ... on 31 October, 2018

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh and Co. Vs CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC), it was held that the contents of the affidavit cannot be disbelieved without rejecting the same. Persons who have given the affidavits were not cross-examined, in such circumstances it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the cash book entries or the statements made in the affidavits. The Apex Court further opined that if there is no material whatsoever on record for ITA No.170/LKW/2017 Page 34 of 37 doubting the veracity of the statements made in the affidavits and if the deponents have also not been subjected to cross-examination for bringing out the validity of their statements, then the Tribunal would not be justified in doubting the correctness of the statement made by the deponents in the affidavits.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next