Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 325 (4.49 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Srilekha Banerjee And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 27 March, 1963

Dcit, Jaipur vs Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd., on 7 November, 2017

viii) The assessing officer merely disbelieved the explanation/statements given by the assessee and has converted good proof into no proof. Hon'ble Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good "proof into no proof"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rainbow Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 6 November, 2017

iii) The assessing officer merely disbelieved the explanation/statements given by the assessee and has converted good proof into no proof. Hon'ble Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good "proof into no proof"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 97 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Motisons Global Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 2 November, 2017

iii) The assessing officer merely disbelieved the explanation/statements given by the assessee and has converted good proof into no proof. Hon'ble Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good "proof into no proof"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 130 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Sree Balaji Bullions,Salem vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Salem on 17 April, 2025

The allegations/statistics of entire sales made from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 by accepting the SBNs to the tune of :-20-: ITA. No: 2302/Chny/2024 Rs.3,73,28,680/-, relied upon by the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A) to take an adverse view is not backed up by relevant evidence/material, and hence cannot be justified. The finding of the AO that such abnormal sales could not be achieved before the announcement of demonetization by the Government, is bereft of any concrete evidence to prove otherwise on record. Further, the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Durga Prasad More and Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and others vs. CIT, Bihar and Orissa reported in 1964 AIR 697, 27.03.1963, is not applicable to the present facts of the case, as the assessee has furnished the documents and records which are submitted to the statutory authority like TNVAT department and discharged the taxes on monthly basis, apart from the books of accounts audited by a Chartered accountant. It is trite law that no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Moreover, since cash generated out of sales has been credited in the books of accounts, the provisions of section 69A could not be invoked in the present case. The assessee's reliance on the coordinate bench decision in the following cases which are identical to the present facts are taken into consideration:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shivansh Kbuildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 6 November, 2017

iii) The assessing officer merely disbelieved the explanation/statements given by the assessee and has converted good proof into no proof. Hon'ble Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good "proof into no proof"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 116 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next