Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 179 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smc Share Brokers Ltd. on 29 August, 2006

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Xvi. vs Arun Malhotra on 25 November, 2013

Tribunal has not given any finding on the said aspect and their order is silent. Submission by the respondent before the Assessing Officer was that three bills totaling to Rs.95,37,920/- were returned and not paid as the material supplied was rejected and returned. The assessment order does not refer to re-import and rejection of material by the Hong Kong party after export. At this stage, we may notice that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 was overruled by the Supreme Court with an order of ITA Nos.923 & 1157/2009 Page 25 of 27 remand in the decision reported as Income Tax Officer vs. M. Pirari Chrodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC) with a direction that the High court was not correct in taking the view and an order of remand was passed for cross examination. Even if we ignore the statement of Chander Prakash Sachdeva, the appellant's contention is that there was sufficient evidence or material to show that transactions were not genuine. Further in case statements of Chander Prakash Sachdeva were debatable, it has to be analyzed as to what weight was to be given to the said statements and whether the corroborative/surrounding circumstances, justify clean purgation of the respondent assessee.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 21 - S Khanna - Full Document

Trn Impex Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-3(1), New Delhi on 17 February, 2021

Chand Chellaram (supra) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC) and Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., SMC Share Broker Ltd., (supra). In view of the above, it is clear that right of assessee have been denied by the authorities below in not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the statements of Shri Deepak Agarwal and Shri Mukesh Kumar. Thus, these statements recorded at the back of the assessee which were adverse in nature to the interest of assessee cannot be relied upon against the assessee and no addition could be made on that basis. The decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee above also apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, there is no material left on record with the Department to justify the addition of Rs.10 lakhs against the assessee. It may also be noted here that assessee has produced the above documentary evidences noted above which clearly shows that the Investor company has made investment in assessee company which is confirmed by the Investor in their confirmation and affidavit of the Director. The balance-sheet of the Investor shows that 9 ITA.No.7991/Del./2019 TRN Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Pradeep Govil, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 31 May, 2017

> In case of failure to afford opportunity of cross-examination, the court may refuse to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. In a case, taking into account the facts as a whole, the tribunal was of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by directing the authorities to give another opportunity for cross-examination, when repeated requests by the assessee earlier to the Assessing officer and CIT (A) had been turned down. Therefore, the additions made were held to be based on suspicion and deleted. The case went up to the High Court,! On such facts, the order of the ITAT was confirmed by High Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345 (Delhi).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sona Power Private Limited, Raipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 27 March, 2023

32. Also a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that in the absence of cross-examination of a person on the basis of whose statement proceedings had been launched in the hands of the assessee, no adverse inferences could have validly been drawn.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhim Singh Jain, New Delhi vs Assessee on 9 December, 2015

6. On careful consideration of above, at the very outset, we note that the sole basis of addition is the statement of Shri Gian Chand Jain before Investigation Wing that he had given accommodation entry to the assessee. The assessee submitted copies of gift deed, affidavit, confirmation of IT Return, PAN No., bank statement and statement of affair as on 31.3.2001 of the donor. The assessee also requested the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 28.10.2011 but the same was not supplied to him and this fact is amply clear from noting of Inspector of the department dated 28.10.2010 (assessee's paper book II page 1) and this cross examination on such witness was also not provided to the assessee. Now, we respectfully take note of dicta laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs SMC Brokers Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that in absence of the witness being made available for cross-examination for the assessee, his statement could not be relied. In the present case, even copy of statement was not provided to the assessee, the question of cross- examination comes thereafter.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Principal Commissioner vs M/S Obulapuram Mining on 17 March, 2023

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the additions of Rs.86,43,47,335/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus claim of expenditure on transportation made by the assessee by relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT VS. SMC Share Brokers Ltd, and in the case of CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, the 15 facts and circumstances of the cases are distinguishable?
Karnataka High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Shri Mehendipur Balaji Enterprises ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 14 September, 2021

7. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we feel that no interference with the impugned order is called for. The Tribunal has correctly understood the law and applied it to the facts of the case. Once there is a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to an assessee nor is cross-examination of the person on whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to a denial of opportunity and, consequently, would be fatal to the proceedings. Following approach adopted by us in SMC Share Brokers Ltd.'s case (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 61 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next