Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.82 seconds)Documents citing
Shiv Metal & Engg. Works vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 November, 1997
Lakshmi Dhatu Udyog (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 June, 1998
As already noted by me, not only in the present reference but also in the Third Member decisions pertaining to Shiv Metal & Engg. Works's case (supra) and Laxmi Metal Works' case (supra) the dissenting order by the ld. Judicial Member is only on general grounds without disputing the factual aspects of the case as noted by the ld. Accountant Member and without taking into account the decisions cited. As I have already had the benefit of the two decisions cited aforesaid, I need not further detain myself and dispose of the present reference vis-a-vis the first point of difference by stating that the reasons recorded by me as a Third Member in the earlier two orders aforesaid would squarely apply to the present case as well. In the final analysis, I approve of the view of the ld. Accountant Member insofar as first question is concerned.
Amal Finance Pvt.Ltd.,, Mumbai vs Assessee on 20 June, 2012
(iv) Shiv Engg. Works vs. ITO (1990) 53 Taxman 109 (Jp)(Mag)
Sec. 69 of the IT Act, 1961--Unexplained investment--Asst. yr.
1981-82--Assessee had started construction of building in
1971 and completed it in December 1981--Finding cost of
construction disclosed by assessee unsatisfactory, ITO referred
matter to valuation cell-- Difference of Rs.66,509 between
valuation as worked out by valuation cell and as disclosed by
the assessee was added to total income of assessee--Whether
since ITO was not able to point out any defects in books of
accounts maintained by assessee, he was not justified in
rejecting book results and substituting figures, even if they were
alleged to be figures of undisclosed investment based on report
of an expert and, thus, aforesaid amount of was not assessable
in hands of assessee--Held, yes.
Heena Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 August, 2010
(iv) Shiv Engg. Works Vs. Income-tax Officer reported in 53
Taxman page 109 (JP) (MAG) wherein it has been held that-
Bee Am Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 13 May, 2014
(iv) Dutta Metal Industries vs Commissioner 2007 (217) ELT 306 (T);
Goldstone Teleservices Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 18 October, 2006
Matra Ahar Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat vs Assessee on 17 October, 2014
He also placed reliance on
the decisions in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Pramilla Pratap Shah [2006] 100
I.T.A No. 2082/Ahd/2010 A.Y. 1999-2000 Page No 4
Matra Ahar Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
ITD 160 (Mum), in the case of Shiv Lal Tal vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 373
(Rajasthan High Court), and in the case of Sheraton Apparels vs. ACIT
[2002] 256 ITR 20/123 Taxman 238 (Bom.). Ld. DR on the other hand
supported the order of AO and Ld. CIT(A).
1