Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 343 (4.02 seconds)
Documents citing Paul Mathews & Sons vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2003

Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cc-2,, ... vs Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur on 26 September, 2025

* Suresh Chand Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 * Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 4, C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) of 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293, Jain Trading Co. v. Income Tax Officer, ITA 5935/Mum/2002 dated 30.10.2006 6 Commissioner of Income-tax v. phingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003(Inv) 7.14 The appellant has further submitted before the undersigned that the sundry creditors are liabilities which are still existing and accounted as payable in the books of the appellant and has not been written off. Even there was opening balance from the previous year which was brought forward to the present financial year and the amount of sundry creditors is pertaining to expenditure incurred by the assessee towards purchase and expenditure incurred towards business activities at the end of present financial year 2017-18 as well as earlier years. In earlier years, the same had been ccepted by the AO without any disturbance and therefore, this amount cannot be disturbed. The appellant has submitted the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15 , 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 submitting that all purchases have been accepted and the sundry creditors, which are part of Annexure --C have been accepted by the AOs. It may further be appreciated that these are liabilities which are still existing and accounted as payable in the books of account of the appellant and has not been written off. The provisions of section 41 cannot be applied in case of running accounts Thus the AO cannot make addition unless it is proved that the party under Consideration is Bogus. In case of these 46 parties, which are part of AnnexureC and for which alleged disclosure was made by the appellant, except 6 parties, the AO could Not prove that the same are Bogus. 7.15 The provisions of section 41(1) could be applied only when there is cessation of liability and in-fact the decision of cessation is a bilateral act, when both the parties Mutually agree or refusal is made by the debtor and accepted by the creditor that the lability is not required to be paid. In no case a debtor can bring the liability to an end on his own volition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 146 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar,Kanpur vs Deputi Commissioner Of Income Tax Cc-2, ... on 26 September, 2025

* Suresh Chand Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 * Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 4, C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) of 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293, Jain Trading Co. v. Income Tax Officer, ITA 5935/Mum/2002 dated 30.10.2006 6 Commissioner of Income-tax v. phingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003(Inv) 7.14 The appellant has further submitted before the undersigned that the sundry creditors are liabilities which are still existing and accounted as payable in the books of the appellant and has not been written off. Even there was opening balance from the previous year which was brought forward to the present financial year and the amount of sundry creditors is pertaining to expenditure incurred by the assessee towards purchase and expenditure incurred towards business activities at the end of present financial year 2017-18 as well as earlier years. In earlier years, the same had been ccepted by the AO without any disturbance and therefore, this amount cannot be disturbed. The appellant has submitted the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15 , 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 submitting that all purchases have been accepted and the sundry creditors, which are part of Annexure --C have been accepted by the AOs. It may further be appreciated that these are liabilities which are still existing and accounted as payable in the books of account of the appellant and has not been written off. The provisions of section 41 cannot be applied in case of running accounts Thus the AO cannot make addition unless it is proved that the party under Consideration is Bogus. In case of these 46 parties, which are part of AnnexureC and for which alleged disclosure was made by the appellant, except 6 parties, the AO could Not prove that the same are Bogus. 7.15 The provisions of section 41(1) could be applied only when there is cessation of liability and in-fact the decision of cessation is a bilateral act, when both the parties Mutually agree or refusal is made by the debtor and accepted by the creditor that the lability is not required to be paid. In no case a debtor can bring the liability to an end on his own volition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 146 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri P.Balasubramanian on 6 March, 2013

22. Since the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) making enhancement to the income determined by the Assessing Officer is based on the unsworn statement obtained under Section 133A, in the absence of other materials, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arise for consideration and the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 13 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Ahamed Brothers,Trichy vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 15 January, 2025

Rs.23,00,409/-. The addition is attributable to the sworn statement of the managing partner recorded by the authorized officer during survey as well as alleged absence of any valid documentary justification for the same. As regards the relevance and admissibility of the sworn statement of the managing partner recorded by the authorized officer during survey, we have held, herein above in this order that, in respectful compliance to the order of Madras High Court in the case of Khader & Sons supra the same is inadmissible. Thus, we hold that no addition in this case is sustainable as far as reliance upon any alleged sworn statement of the managing partner is concerned.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shailesh Goyal,Tonk vs Acit, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur on 29 July, 2025

(ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Income-tax Act is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law, vide Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.);
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishnamurthy L/R By Smt. ... vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bangalore on 31 July, 2025

tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Income-tax Act is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law, vide Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.);
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next