Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Krishnaveni Ammal (Legal ... on 27 January, 1983

Sohanraj Praveen Kumar , Chennai vs Dcit Non Corporate Circle 2 , Chennai on 14 March, 2018

e) In the case CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal reported in 158 ITR 826, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court held that when there was information to effect that Multani Bankers had only indulging in hawala transactions by merely lending their names, the credit entries in the name of the various Multani Bankers appearing in the books of the assessee did not represent genuine transaction because though the assessee had stated that crossed checks are 34 ITA No.1786/CHNY/2017 available they were not produced before the Revenue. In the case of the assessee the issue is totally different.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc-1, Chandigarh on 7 February, 2020

Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169(Del) • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT reported at (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) • CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More reported at (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) • CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal reported at (1986) 158 ITR 826 (Mad) • Hersh W. Chadha Vs. DDIT reported at (2011) 43 SOT 544 (Del) • CIT vs. P. Mohankala reported at (2007) 291 ITR 278(SC) • Filatex India Vs. CIT reported at (2015) 229 Taxmann.com 555(Del) • CIT vs. Reliance International Corp.(P.) Ltd. reported at (2011) 196 Taxmann.com 387 (Del)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 179 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sohanraj Uttamchand , Chennai vs Dcit Non Corporate Circle 2 , Chennai on 28 February, 2018

e) In the case CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal reported in 158 ITR 826, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court held that when there was information to effect that Multani Bankers had only indulging in hawala transactions by merely lending their names, the credit entries in the name of the various Multani Bankers appearing in the books of the assessee did not represent genuine transaction because though the assessee had stated that crossed checks are available they were not produced before the Revenue. In the case of the assessee the issue is totally different.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/A Meghana Restaurant & Bar, Warangal vs Assessee on 6 August, 2013

8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. While determining whether the partners have sufficient source to make an investment of Rs.33,89,827/- the Assessing Officer seems to have come to the conclusion that the partners have no source of income to make any investment at all in the firm and added the entire amount. The assessee had not taken the opportunity of explaining the full details of source of the partners in the course of assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee following the ratio of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (supra) wherein it has been held as follows :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Batuklal Makwana, Chennai vs Ito Non Corporate Ward 9(1), Chennai on 16 August, 2019

Since, the right to exemption must be established by those who seek it , the onus therefore lies on the respective assessee . In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)). However, in these cases, it is seen from the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), supra, that the respective assessee has not placed relevant material and proved the genuineness of the impugned transactions. Although, an appeal against the above orders have been filed before this tribunal, even before us also, the respective assessee has not challenged the findings recorded by the lower authorities with relevant material and hence we dismiss these appeals.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Shankarlal Vishwakarma, vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 27 January, 2023

It is settled law that a failure to adduce evidence and, rather, the best evidence that a party can furnish, being that which is supposed to be in its possession, would raise the presumption as to adverse inference (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal [1986] 158 ITR 826 (Mad)). We may though clarify that, in the conspectus of the case, the same provides yet another ground for regarding the impugned credits as not genuine, even as a comparison, to the extent possible under the circumstances, stands made by us. Coming to the quantum, suffice to state that the claim, as against at Rs.414 PMT for AY 2012-13, disallowed to the extent of Rs.257 PMT, has been made at Rs.842 PMT. The disallowance (Rs.189.62 lacs), implies Rs.188 PMT; the assessee's claim being at Rs.851.30 lacs and thus an allowance of Rs.654 PMT, as against Rs.162 PMT for AY 2012-13, i.e., is much higher than that would arise if the assessee's income was to be computed on an estimate basis, taking an overall view of the net profit or gross profit. Our appellate jurisdiction being confined to the subject matter of 57 | P a g e ITA Nos. 96 &129/JAB/2018 (AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15) ITA No. 252/JAB/2016 (AY: 2012-13) C.O.Nos.10 & 11/JAB/2018 &01/JAB/2017 Shankarlal Vishwakarma appeal, it is, in case of specific disallowances, not the correct assessment of income, but the correct addition/disallowance, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The comparison is thus only supportive of the disallowance under reference.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 82 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next