Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Ramniwas Kanailal vs S.P. Shende, Income-Tax Officer, D-1 ... on 18 June, 1964

Shyamsunder Musahib vs Wealth-Tax Officer on 25 August, 1993

The Assessing Officer also should properly apply his mind to such material and he must draw an inference based on reason, that the wealth has escaped assessment. The belief must be an honest and reasonable belief on the basis of reasonable ground. While forming such belief the Assessing Officer should consider all facts cumulatively. Reliance may be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 and in the case of Ramniwas Kanailal v. S.P. Shende, ITO [1965] 56 ITR 659 (Bom.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Elphinstone Picture Palace vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 1969

11. Of the cases discussed above, Ramniwas Kanailal's case is a case where there was no material at all for the basis of the belief of the Income-tax Officer and in the other two cases, the assessee under the law was not bound to disclose materials which, in the opinion of the income-tax officials, amounted to omission or failure to disclose material facts. In the instant case, if the loans mentioned in the petitioner's return for the assessment year 1960-61 were bogus and really not advanced to it, there can be no doubt that it did not disclose truly the material facts in its return. But Mr. Lal Narain Sinha has contended that whether the creditors of the petitioner were bogus hundi brokers and bankers, as mentioned in the list of the Directorate of Inspection, was not at all a relevant fact for the purpose of forming an opinion as to whether the petitioner had omitted or failed to disclose truly material facts. What was relevant was whether in fact the loans were advanced to the petitioner or not, because even bogus hundi brokers and bankers sometimes may really advance loans. According to Mr. Sinha, therefore, the list of the Directorate of Inspection could not be the basis of the belief of the Income-tax Officer as required by Section 147 of the Act for issuing a notice against the petitioner in the instant case. In support of this contention he has relied on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos.
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Shiva Lal vs Income-Tax Officer, "L" Ward And Ors. on 13 May, 1969

11. Dr. Pal also drew my attention to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rantaniwas Kanailal v. S. P. Shende, Income-tax Officer, D-I Ward, Bombay, [1965] 56 I.T.R. 659 (Bom.). In that case, the petitioner alleged that at the time of the original assessment proceedings he was interrogated by the Income-tax Officer about his antecedents and his business activities in West Punjab, and he was also called upon to file a written statement in answer to certain queries. An office copy of the written statement alleged to have been filed by him was produced and exhibited in the proceedings. In this state of allegations in the petition, an affidavit in answer was filed and also a second affidavit was filed by the revenue. None of the deponents of the said two affidavits, however, had any personal knowledge of the assessment proceedings for the relevant years. The deponents also did not claim that their informations were derived from the Income-tax Officers of that time, namely, Kazi, Gopinathan and Pradhan, who were the officers who dealt with the cases in course of the regular assessment proceedings. This kind of denial by persons who had no knowledge of the proceedings was strongly commented upon by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1