Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madhab Ram Bora on 5 November, 1976

Sh. Anil Talwar, Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc-Ii, Chandigarh on 7 August, 2018

); CIT v. Devandas Perumal & co. [1983] 140 ITR 943 (Bombay)/[1982]28CTR 211 (Bombay); ACIT v. E. Bhoopathy [1978] 113 ITR 188; ACIT v. Horilal Kunj Behari Lal [1977] 106 ITR 720 (Allahabad); CIT v. Madhab ram bora [1977] 110 ITR 532 (Gauhati); Rajeev Agarwal, v. ACIT 2012 (9) TMI 442-ITAT, Agra ITA no. 187/Agra/2011. It was also his submission that it is well settled that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on the basis of the DVO's report because the said Report at best is only an opinion on estimate of investment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ripudaman Singal vs Income Tax Officer. on 26 April, 1995

Reliance is also placed on two decisions of the Gauhati High Court - one in the case of CIT vs. Chhaganlal Shankarlal (1975) 100 ITR 464 (Gau) and the other in the case of CIT vs. Madhab Ram Bora (1977) 110 ITR 532 (Gau), wherein it has been held that where income is taxed on percentage of turnover, after making an increase in percentage, that increase could not be treated as a basis for holding that the assessee had concealed the income. The AO had calculated profit at a higher rate but there was nothing to show that the assessee was guilty of fraud, etc., in making the return.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1