Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 November, 1970

Panchvati Motors Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 September, 2007

10. Thus having regards to these facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that income of Rs. 16 lacs surrendered by the assessee in the revised return deserved to be accepted. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making further addition by ignoring the point referred to above. Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the trading addition made on account of suppression of sales on vehicles and spare parts by the AO. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Balram Jakhar [Alongwith Wta No. ... on 27 June, 2005

Moreover, the AO never produced Shri J.K. Jain before the assessee for cross-examination. The assessee in his reply before the AO specifically requested to produce the persons who have made the statements against the assessee for cross-examination but no person was produced for cross-examination before the AO. Therefore, whatever material was collected at the back of the assessee cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. It is settled law that if any material is collected by the IT authorities at the back of the assessee then opportunity to controvert the same should have been given to the assessee. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (supra). Therefore, in the present case, whatever material was collected by the AO cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The fact was conceded by the AO before the CIT(A) that except the copies of the documents recovered by the CBI there is no other material found against the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh on 14 October, 1985

26. I have already mentioned in paragraph 20 that in this case the same person, namely, Maharaja Kumar Kanial Singh, is the karta of the Hindu undivided family who was assessed as individual by the Gift-tax Officer when the return was filed by him in the status of a Hindu undivided family. It cannot be doubted that Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh is the holder of an impartible estate and previously the holder of an impartible estate used to be assessed as individual but, he, for the first time, claimed before the Tribunal that his status should be taken as Hindu undivided family. If these facts are borne in mind, then the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Chiranji Lal v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 715 discussed at pp. 356, 357 and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mangat Ram Hazari Mal v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 788 discussed at pp. 357, 358 and of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 discussed at p. 358 of this judgment clearly go to show that the Tribunal has ample power under Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act to set aside an assessment made on the individual and direct the Income-tax Officer to assess the Hindu undivided family. The same power as is mentioned in Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act has been given to the Tribunal under Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and similar power has been given to the Tribunal under Section 23(5) of the G. T. Act. Thus, the Tribunal was competent to set aside the assessment against the individual instead of cancelling the same and the Tribunal should have directed the Gift-tax Officer to make the assessment on Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh in the status of a Hindu undivided family.
Patna High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit 5(1), Indore vs Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore on 29 July, 2019

(v) In the case of Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (supra) Hon'ble High Court held that "The copy of entries from the accounts of another firm supplied to the Income tax Officer by the Sales tax Department was not legal and admissible evidence on which the Income Tax Officer could act for imposing extra burden of income tax on the assessee when the original accounts were missing and could not be verified and when the assessee denied the entries therein".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dhunjibhoy Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 February, 2002

He further observed that in view of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) and the decision of the apex Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. 1TO (1991) 191 ITR 662 (SC), no assessment can be made merely on the information received from other authorities.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navin Kumar vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 17 November, 2005

Since I hold that the appellant has taken a loan of Rs. 30,000 in cash and thus has contravened the provisions of Section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961, therefore, the penalty for each year is upheld to the tune of Rs. 30,000 each and the balance amount of penalty for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 is deleted to the tune of Rs. 52,000 and Rs. 70,150, respectively. It is moreso because the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT is squarely applicable and in the said case their Lordships have held that no addition can be made on the basis of enquiries found in the books of account of the third party and the appellant denying the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next