Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 29 June, 1973

Pioneer Trading Syndicate vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 July, 1979

We are in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by the Gujarat High Court in Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 624, though for abovementioned reasons. We are, however, unable to endorse the opinion expressed by the Delhi High Court in Rattan Lal v. 110 [1975] 98 ITR 681. Their Lordships did not give appropriate importance to Sub-section (8) relating to finality of orders passed under Sub-section (6).
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Goyal Trading Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 June, 1988

But this decision was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case in Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 244, which was also taken into account by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Radheshyam Tibrewall v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR .393, in which the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court at Pioneer Trading Syndicate v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 5 (FB) and Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 624 (Guj.) was followed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gem Palace vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 July, 1986

8. Learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn our attention to the case of Pioneer Trading Syndicate v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 5 (All) [FB] and Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 624 (Guj). These cases relate to voluntary disclosures and are not relevant to the facts of this case. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the case of Oriental Wire Industries (P.)
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mst. Zulekha Begum (Khatoon) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 August, 1978

24. Mr. Sengupta, for the 'revenue, contended, on the other hand, that the facts found by the Tribunal remained unchallenged and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to raise indirectly the question of perversity which the assessee had sought to raise unsuccessfully before the Tribunal. Mr. Sengupta next contended that the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rattan Lal did not lay down the correct view and that the other High Courts had taken a different view. He cited a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 624. In that case, the assessee, a dealer in precious stones, was being assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1957-58. During the proceedings the ITO noticed that the assessee's business was being financed by money introduced in the form of hundi loans and in the relevant assessment year a sum of Rs. 90,000 had been introduced in the form of hundi loans from twenty Multani brokers of Bombay. These brokers, when confronted, admitted that they had not advanced any money to the assessee and that they were merely name-lenders. This position was made known to the assessee on January 3, 1966. On January 31, 1966, five persons made declarations under Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 disclosing unassessed income aggregating to Rs. 90,000. It was stated that the said amounts had been paid in cash to the assessee for the purpose of his business. The declarants duly paid tax on the amounts declared. The assessee thereupon contended that the amount of the hundis standing in the name of the Multani brokers were in fact the money belonging to the said five persons who were originally not eager to disclose their names and that he had taken the money from the said persons.
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Amal Kumar Chakraborty vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 August, 1992

Further, reliance was placed by the Revenue on the case law as reported in Sri Krishna v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 618 (Cal) (sic), Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. CIT and Badri Pd. and Sons v. CIT , in order to stress that even the disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme would not have the effect of converting the money into the income of the declarant, if it did not belong to the declarant. Reference was also made to another decision of the High Court in the case as reported in 120 ITR 518 (sic).
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Mohd. Ahsan Wani vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 July, 1976

13. There is a difference of opinion between some of the High Courts on the interpretation of Section 24 of the Finance Act, In Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1974] 95 ITR 624 (Guj), the Gujarat High Court held that the immunity against the investigation of the source of the declared income was given to the declarant and not to another person and that it was open to the department while making assessment of that person to investigate into the source of the declared amount.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Rattan Lal And Ors. vs Income Tax Officer Etc. on 1 March, 1974

(15) Mr. Dhebar then relied on a judgment of the Gujarat High Court, in Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Gujarat, Ahmedabad, (1973) 2 Income-tax Journal 283, (4) the learned Judges of that court while examining the scope of section 24, observed that they could not attribute to the legislature an intention to encourage fraud. But, from the budget speech of the Finance Minister, noticed earlier, it was clear that the Government's various measures to unearth unaccounted incomes and wealth had not met the desired success. It was expected under the scheme, as the Finance Minister put it, that "those who have been misled in the past would find in it a reason enough to return to the path of civic responsibilities. It was not a question of encouraging fraud. It was intended to forgive and forget the by-gones and to give an opportunity to those who had been misled in the past to return to the right path. Persons who had not disclosed their income in the past were, therefore, not to be questioned. Even if the declarant was a benamidar, his declaration was not to be questioned and the amount declared by him was treated as his total income. This was done in order to bring to the surface the hidden wealth. There was no question of encouraging fraud. It was a measure specifically designed to ignore the misdeeds of the past. Once the hidden amount came out to the surface, the declarant, whoever he may be, was to be treated as its owner and was expected to keep to the right path thereafter. The law, therefore, specifically created a fiction for the purpose of treating the declared amount to be the income of the declarant. With respect, we must say, that the fiction contained in sub-section (3) and the non obstante clause in sub-section (1) of section 24 appeared to have escaped the notice of the learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court in thte said case.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 Next