Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Orbit Travel And Tours Pvt. Ltd., ... on 26 February, 1999

Rabindra Nath Kumar, Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 January, 2014

"1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.14,48,829/- made by the AO u/s. 69B on account of difference in the value of closing stock as on 31.03.06 as per statement submitted before the bank and that disclosed in the books of accounts of the assessee relying on a case law. CIT Vs. Veerdip Rollers Pvt. td. 307 ITR 3 (SC), the facts of which is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as because in the instant case, on the contrary to the said case law, no quantiative stock statement was given by the assessee to the concerned bank."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs National Standard India Ltd, Mumbai on 28 July, 2017

We find that while for in the case of M/s. Super Malls (P) Ltd.(supra) it had emerged that the contents of the documents seized during the course of the search proceedings conducted on the 'director' of the assessee company were in context of the cash receipts pertaining to the sale of shops and offices of the assessee, in the backdrop of which factual position the Hon'ble High Court had concluded that the Tribunal by adopting a hyper technical approach had erred in dislodging the duly substantiated satisfaction of the A.O that the seized documents in view of what was contained or brought out on a fair reading of their contents, belonged to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Adarsh Kumar, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 15 November, 2017

4.16 Further, in the case of CIT v Super Malls (P) Ltd.(Supra)the Hon'ble High Court held that where the satisfaction note of the A.O. had used the words that documents seized "belonged to" assessee instead of words "pertains or pertained to" assessee, the notice u/s 153C could not be declared invalid. In the present case before us, there are no such facts. 43 The assessing officer has no where used the "belonged to" in the satisfaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Hitesh Ashok Vaswani on 2 November, 2023

In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vinita Chaurasia (supra), this Court reiterated the above legal position after discussing the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Super Malls (P) Limited (supra) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The essential jurisdictional requirement for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act (as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 1st June 2015) qua the 'other person' (in this case the assessees) is that the seized documents forming the basis of the satisfaction note must not merely 'pertain' to the other person but must belong to the 'other person'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Moin Akhtar Qureshi As Representative ... vs Acit, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi on 27 April, 2022

In the case of Super Malls (P) Ltd. (supra) the facts were that pen drives were seized from the individual (who also happened to be director of the company) and the print outs from the pen drive indicated cash receipts from the sale of shops and offices in assessee's other concern. On 36 ITA.No.6672 to 6675, 6668 to 6671 & 6667/Del./2018 Moin Akhtar Qureshi, Representative Assessee/Agent of M/s. Jean Louis Deniot etc., New Delhi.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur on 28 October, 2022

CIT vs. Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd (48 SOT 23 (URO)  ACIT vs. Ranabaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 7 ITR (Trib) 161 (DLH)  ACIT vs. M/s. Anil Special Steel Industries Ltd. (decision of Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 1100/JP/2011) From the above decisions, it is clear that payment or contribution made to the provident fund authority any time before filing of the return for the year in which the liability to pay accrued is an allowable expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun Agarwal, Jaipur vs Acit, C.C. 3, , Jaipur on 22 November, 2022

3. The ld. AO did not record any satisfaction note in the case of searched person that some document pertain to person other than searched person, which is of quite importance and without recording of which she could not have proceeded against the appellant, who is other person. In place what she has done is that she has straight away recorded satisfaction note in the case of the appellant being other person which fact is apparent from the satisfaction note itself. Similar circumstances arose before the Hon`ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT v/s M/s. Rangoli Buildtech (ITA 5015/Del/2014) vide order dated 22.10.2020 and the Hon`ble Bench held such satisfaction note containing name, address, PAN etc. on the top of the satisfaction note (APB 36) as having been recorded in the case of other person and without there being any satisfaction note in case of person searched the whole order of assessment was quashed. Copy of said judgment is at APB 29-32 of Case law index. It is true that as per verdict of the Hon`ble SC in the case of CIT v/s Super Malls P Ltd. (423 ITR 281) - (Copy at APB 19-24 of case law index)in case of common AO only one satisfaction note is sufficient. However in the cited case the jurisdiction over the case of the person searched and the other person was with the same AO at the time of recording satisfaction (as noted on APB 19 back) and under such circumstances the Hon`ble SC held like this. In this case the aggrieved party viz. Super Malls raised an issue that since recording of satisfaction note was mandatory in the case of searched person which was missing in this case and the satisfaction note had been directly prepared in the case of other person and hence request was made to quash the proceedings. The Hon`ble SC while examining the issue of recording of only one satisfaction note has reproduced the satisfaction note prepared by the ld. AO (at APB 2 - back) as per which it is evident that such satisfaction note was prepared by the ld. AO on 22.02.2013 and the juridiction over the case of other person had been assigned to him on 15.01.2013 and therefore at the time of recording such satisfaction note the juridiction over the case of both the persons viz.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mohan Exports India Ltd. on 12 May, 2006

12. We may also mention that none of the three judgments, viz., Mahalakshmi Glass Works' case (supra), Parikh Engg. & Body Building Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) and Super Roller Flour Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) relate to the facts of the case before us. In none of the three aforesaid court judgments there was any dispute as to whether or not tax liability under Section 115JA can be computed in an order of intimation under Section 143 (1)(a). In all the three cases the assessee had themselves worked out tax payable on the basis of book profits. The Assessing Officer, however, made his own adjustments to the amount of book profit as worked out in the return of income and by way of order under Section 143(1)(a) the Assessing Officer demanded an higher amount of tax payable under Section 115J, than that determined by the assessees themselves. In none of those three cases there is any doubt that the Assessing Officer cannot compute tax liability under Section 115J on the basis of information available in the return of income where the assessee has not done that in the return of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next