Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.03 seconds)
Documents citing Bansal Rice Mills vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 March, 2001

Jaysun Enterprise, Surat vs Assessee on 30 March, 2010

6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Ld. A.O. has examined the cash creditors in the presence of the partner as well as presence of A.R. of the appellant. Creditors had denied having been given cash loan to that extent as shown by the appellant in the books of account. There is no evidence of destroying the books of account in flood. No copy of FIR or insurance claim had been filed by the appellant before any authority. The appellant had not filed second appeal before the ITAT against the quantum addition. The case laws cited by the A.R. squarely not applicable as ld. A.O. had proved that this is the concealed income of the assessee. Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmadabad 'D' Bench in case of Shri Saurabh Bansal vs. ITO(supra), held that after amending the provision in Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(C), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in case of National Textiles v. CIT (supra) & CIT vs. Jalaram Oil Mills (supra), would not be applicable in respect of addition made in the A.Y. 2002-03. The assessee claimed depreciation on Rs.11,21,844/- after claiming the addition in assets I T A No . 1 88 9 /A h d/ 1 0 A. Y. 04- 0 5 Page 7 before 30.09.2003 but actually the addition in asets before 30.-09.2003 was Rs.4,53,189/- which was accepted by the assessee during the course of assessment. If the assessee's case has not been scrutinized, then it would result in concealing the income and tax as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Zoom Communications. We accordingly hold that there is a case of deemed concealment of income by virtue of explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(C) and tax sought to be evaded has to be calculated by invoking Clause a to Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(C). Therefore, we confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Roop Fashion, Ludhiana vs Dcit-Cc-1, Ludhiana on 14 June, 2022

* Nitisha Silk Mills(P) Ltd. Vs. ITO [IT Appeal No. 896 (Ahd) of 2011, dt. 20/07/2012] * M/s Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No. 6520/Del/2018 dt. 12/04/2019 (Del) * CIT Vs. Kailash Jewellery House (Del HC) in ITA 613/2010 dt. 09/04/2010 * Bansal Rice Mills Vs. ITO in [2002] 120 Taxman 155 (Chd Trib) * CIT Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (Guj HC) in ITA No. 2471 of 2009 dt. 03/07/2012 5.7 The assessee submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) that when complete books of accounts maintained by the assessee had duly been accepted by the AO then the addition without any evidence on the basis of conjectures and surmises was against the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the AO made the addition by treating the cash deposits out of regular books of accounts as undisclosed income of the assessee which was totally incorrect. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of President Industries reported in 258 ITR 654.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next