Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing R. Rajendran, S.V. Sivalinga Nadar And ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 5 March, 1998

Smt. Amishi Swapnil Shah, Ahmedabad vs Ito, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad on 1 February, 2019

12.1 We also find support and guidance from the judgment of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Shri S. R. Rajendra Kumar V. ITO in ITA No. 1092/Bang/2014 wherein it was held that if addition on account of cash deposited in bank account cannot be made under section 68 then the addition will be made under 69 of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.P. Srinivasan, Income-Tax Officer vs A. Rajagopal on 3 July, 1998

Learned counsel submitted that he is producing the orders of the Tribunal for the perusal of this court for the purpose of appreciating the sentence that may be imposed on the respondent. Learned counsel pleaded that the minimum sentence prescribed under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may not be imposed on the respondent-accused considering that he has become very old and he underwent mental agony due to disease and also the proceedings which were started in the year 1983-84. My attention was drawn to a ruling of R. Balasubramanian J. in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 557 of 1996, 568 of 1996 and 570 of 1996, dated March 5, 1998 (R. Rajendran v. ITO [2000] 242 ITR 368 (Mad)). In those revision cases the learned judge has modified the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower court to one till the rising of the court. However, he has confirmed the sentence of fine imposed. Taking into account that the proceedings were started in the year 1983-84 and the respondent-accused is a patient and underwent mental agony and considering the ruling of R. Balasubramanian J. I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if adequate fine is imposed on the respondent-accused and he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court on all the counts. The respondent is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500 under each of the offences under Sections 193, 196, 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Raj Bahri vs Asstt. Cit on 26 August, 2002

8.1. As regards to the merit of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also submitted that the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on account of jewellery while making statement, recorded under section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, on the condition that the same was to be spread over in the last four years. It was vehemently argued that at the time of recording of the statement, the assessee specifically mentioned that the surrender of Rs. 2 lacs representing the unexplained investments may be spread over in the last four years and the abovesaid surrender had been made with the entire purpose to purchase peace and avoid confrontation with the department and litigation, etc. He drew our attention towards page Nos. 4 and 5 of the paper book which is the statement of the assessee recorded on 20-10- 1987, by the ADI-cum-Income Tax Officer. It was vehemently argued that the assessee after adding the income of Rs. 50,000 in each of the last four years, revised the return of income and paid the taxes, so, there was no justification in making the addition in the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench in the case of S. Maiiappa Nadar vs, Income Tax Officer (1984) 19 TTJ (Mad) 431.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

John Ettimootil Samuel, Coimbatore vs Assessee on 27 January, 2009

In the case of Shri R.Sugantha Ravindran vs ITO, in I.T.A.No. 2126/Mds/08, for assessment year 2005-06, order dated 30.6.2009, [a copy of which is enclosed at pages 8 to 11 of the paper book], similar situation has been tackled with by arriving at a rate of ` 15,000/- per cent when :- 9 -: ITA 385/09 assessee had adopted ` 28,938/- per cent and Assessing Officer had adopted only ` 5400/- per cent. In that case, the assessee had relied on a proposed sale agreement which was not executed subsequently in which the sale value was `28,938/- as on 21.10.1983. In this case also almost similar situation arises. In our view, the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have failed in their duty by not considering the sale instances produced before them, respectively, although they related to few years later than the year 1981. In Chennai Bench decision (supra), the Assessing Officer had placed reliance on the cost adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. To meet the ends of justice and to be fair to both the parties, we deem it fit to take the average cost at ` 12,000/- per cent [15,000+9000รท2] and thus direct the Assessing Officer to adopt this value to estimate the cost of the land as on 1.4.1981. The indexed cost of acquisition shall be arrived at by adopting the rate of ` 12,000/- per cent. We may mention that the assessee is entitled o exemption u/s 54 of the Act which has been duly claimed and allowed by the Assessing Officer as well. No other material issue has been raised in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roshanlal B. Mehta, Mumbai vs Assessee on 25 July, 2016

9 ITA 6389/Mum/2014 The assessee has made investment in the bank account. He submitted that the assessee's explanation were an afterthought and was not explained satisfactorily. The ld. D.R. also filed a written submission before the Tribunal. He has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.R. Rajendra Kumar v. ITO in ITA No. 1092/Bang/2014 dated 30th September, 2015.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gopal S. Pandit vs The Commissioner Of on 25 June, 2018

2. As far as first issue is concerned, we have already dismissed the connected Appeal of the Assessee listed today before us, namely, I.T.A. No.34/2017 in the case of 'Gopal. V. Pandit v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another' in which we have held that in the absence of specific provision in Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ['Act' for short] the present Authority, namely, Joint Commissioner is not expected to give an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before giving an approval to the Draft Assessment Order to be passed by the lower Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner. The relevant portion is quoted below for ready reference.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gopal S. Pandit vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 June, 2018

2. As far as the question raised before us is concerned, we have already held in I.T.A.No.36/2017 in the case of 'Gopal. V. Pandit v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another', that we are of the opinion that the same does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is a matter of estimate based on the relevant material seized during the course of search and the statement recorded of the Assessee u/s. 132[4] of the Act as to what was the income of the Assessee who was working as Priest during the relevant period.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gopal S. Pandit vs The Commissioner Of on 28 June, 2018

2. As far as these issues are concerned, we have already dismissed the connected Appeal of the Assessee, namely, I.T.A. No.36/2017 in the case of 'Gopal. V. Pandit v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another' in which as regards first question, we have held that in the absence of specific provision in Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ['Act' for short] the present Authority, namely, Joint Commissioner is not expected to give an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before giving an approval to the Draft Assessment Order to be passed by the lower Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, I.T.A. No.37/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another 4/13 Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner. The relevant portion is quoted below for ready reference.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mediga Ashok Kumar, , Secunderabad vs Assessee on 29 December, 2014

While accepting that provisions of section 68 are not applicable as assessee has not maintained books of accounts, Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that provisions of section 69 are applicable and relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of P.V. Rajendar vs. ITO 57 TTJ 159, he changed the section under which addition was made and confirmed the amount stating that assessee has failed to submit any evidence to prove the source of cash deposits in the bank account. Assessee is aggrieved.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1