Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing H.M. Esufali, H.M. Abdulali Siyagunj vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore on 2 December, 1968

Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., ... on 4 May, 2021

3. The brief facts and background of the case qua the first issue is that, the assessee company belongs to BPTP group which are mainly engaged in the business of real estate developers in the NCR region and other parts of the country. A search and seizure operation was carried out on the group companies of BPTP on 15.11.2007, during the course of which certain documents were found and seized which revealed that these group companies had purchased huge part of land in different villages of Faridabad. The seized documents indicated a business model wherein only part payment of sale consideration in respect of land were paid at the time of execution of sale deed and the balance sale consideration, was made through postdated cheques (PDCs). For the intervening period, i.e., period between the date of sale deed and the date of encashment of PDCs, interest was paid in cash to the Vendors of the land by the vendee company on monthly basis @ 1.25% per month on the amount of PDC. During the course of post search enquiry, it was noticed that the said payment of interest by the vendee company in cash has not been accounted for in the books of the account. The ld. Assessing Officer relying on these seized documents held that the interest expenditure is nothing but undisclosed expenditure of the assessee. After relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abduli Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1973) ITR 271, the Assessing Officer held that the interest payment in cash to the vendors on the amount of PDCs should be calculated @ 15% per month (i.e. 1.25% per month) which he treated to be expenditure outside the books of accounts and accordingly, computed the interest 4 ITA Nos. 6343 & 6304/Del/2013 Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kunjilal vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer 2 on 16 April, 1969

Reliance has also been placed on Esufali v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, M.P. (1969 M.P.L.J. 228), where at page 231 it is observed that in the notice which is issued in Form No. XVI, the extent of escaped turnover has to be specified. The only point directly decided in that case was that best judgment assessment can also be made under Section 19(1) of the Act. The notice issued under Rule 33 which was considered in that case mentioned the extent of the escaped turnover and no question arose as to the effect of not specifying in the notice the amount of turnover escaping assessment. Esufali's case 1969 M.P.L.J. 228 cannot therefore be taken as an authority that the assessing authority must specify the amount of turnover escaping assessment in the notice. The observations relied upon were made in a different context.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Durgadutta Moda on 10 April, 1973

Two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagat Ram Jai Narain v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 287 and Kashi Jewellers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 291, another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore [1969] 24 S.T.C. 1 and a decision of the Patna High Court in Mittal & Company v. State of Bihar [1969] 24 S.T.C. 418, which have taken the view that the Sales Tax Officer in reassessing the turnover is entitled to make a best Judgment assessment, in our view, lay down the correct law. Once the accounts are discarded the foundation of the original assessment made on the footing of the accounts collapses and the turnover made on that basis loses its validity. The assessing officer becomes entitled to cover the entire range of the turnover and may make a best Judgment assessment. It is true, the extent of the escapement has got to be kept in view and, therefore, it requires to be indicated or ascertained. Our answer to the first question, therefore, shall be that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was the duty of the department to fix the actual amount of escapement.
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hurdatroy Jute Mills Private Ltd. And ... vs Superintendent Of Commercial Taxes And ... on 24 March, 1972

In the case of H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore [1969] 24 S.T.C. 1 also, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the effect of Section 9(3) of the Central Act is that the procedure of making an assessment, collection of tax and enforcing payment of any tax including penalty under that Act is the same as laid down in the local Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act including the provisions for the imposition of penalty for escaped assessment would apply for assessment and imposition of penalty for escaped assessment under the Central Act.
Patna High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Khemka & Co vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 1975

The Solicitor-General on behalf of the Revenue placed reliance on the decisions in K. V. Adinarayana Setty v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar Circle' Kolar 14 S.T.C. 587; Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Kantilal Mohanlal & Brothers 19 S.T.C. 377; M/s H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali v. Commissioner of Sales Tax M.P. Indore 24 S.T.C. 1; and Auto Pins (India) v. The State of Haryana & o.s. 26 S.T.C. 466 in support of his contention. The contentions of the Solicitor General are these : Section 9(1) of the Central Act speaks of tax. That section does not mention penalty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 31 - A N Ray - Full Document

Kailash Nath Kashi Nath vs The Sales Tax Officer on 19 April, 1974

In this connection, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1969] 24 S.T.C. 1. In that case a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the estimate of escaped turnover under the local and the Central Acts for the entire period 1st November, 1959, to 20th October, 1960, made by the Sales Tax Officer was based on mere guess-work and was without any proper basis. It held that as the escaped turnover proved was only Rs. 31,171.28, the assessee was liable to be assessed under both the Acts only on the taxable turnover comprised in the escaped turnover of Rs. 31,171.28. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case also as the escaped turnovers for the two years actually found by the Sales Tax Officer were Rs. 10,60,000 and Rs. 18,00,000, he could not arbitrarily and purely on guess-work determine the petitioner's taxable turnovers at Rs. 35,00,000 and Rs. 41,00,000.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1