Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Shashi Kiran vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 August, 2010

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Barnala vs Ito, Barnala on 5 August, 2022

665 & 666/Chandi/2016 vide order dt. 16/01/2018 • Shashi Kiran Vs. CIT [2010] 195 Taxman 332 (P&H) • Shri Mangat Singh Vs. The ITO in ITA No. 246/Chd/2018 vide order dt. 15/01/2019 • Smt. Joginder Kaur and Ors S. Amritk Singh in RSA No. 2061 of 2007 (P&H) • Javvadi Koteshwara Rao Vs. Sonti Sambasiva Rao 2004 (1) ALD 629, 2004 (4) ALT 614 • CIT Vs. Medical Trust Hospital 220 CTR 199 (Kerla) • Ram Kishan and another vs. Bijender Mann alias Vijender Mann and others RSA No. 4946 of 2011 • M/s Om Plantation Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1047/JP/2017 vide order dt. 09/10/2018 (Jaipur Trib)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joginder Lal C/O M/S Bambi Hotels ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Ludhiana ... on 20 January, 2015

The onus to prove that the valuation of a transaction, is other than that recorded in a registered sale deed, necessary falls to the revenue but where the revenue is possessed of sufficient material ITA-176-2013 [7] that raises a presumption that consideration reflected in a registered instrument, is incorrect, the burden to rebut this presumption, shifts to the assessee. The revenue has in its attempt to discharge onus recorded the statements of the assessee's vendors, who were duly cross-examined by the assessee and maintained that the true value of the transaction was Rs.38 lacs. The assessing officer has not only relied upon these statements but has also relied upon other sale deeds and a sale by the PUDA reflecting a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- per square yard. The statements are clear, categoric and as they do not suffer from any contradictions are sufficient when read alongwith the other sale deeds and the nature and location of the land to rightly infer that the revenue has discharged its onus. The situation would have been different if the statements by vendors did not inspire confidence being contradictory or vague or there was no other evidence or the assessee had produced evidence to rebut these statements. The assessee apart from his bald statement is unable to refer to any contradiction in the statements of his vendors or any evidence to rebut the material on record. The questions posed before us, also came up for consideration in Shashi Kiran Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA-129-2010, decided on 13.08.2010, and were answered in favour of the revenue by holding that though onus to prove lies upon the revenue but as statements made by the sellers remain unrebutted, the onus placed upon the revenue stands discharged. The factual situation in the present case ITA-176-2013 [8] is identical.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Bhalla - Full Document
1