Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.88 seconds)

Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi on 21 December, 2021

8.2 Further, it was held in the case of ITO Vs K. Jayaraman (1987) 168 ITR 757 (Mad) that if a doubt arises as to the validity or the genuineness of a document filed, for the limited purpose of a proceeding before the authority under the Act, such authorities are bound to go into the question of genuineness and validity. In view of this, the onus automatically shifts to the assessee to establish the identity of the creditors their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K.Siva Reddy(Huf), Secunderabad vs Assessee

7. In this case, the learned departmental representative submitted that there was no legal necessity for transfer of HUF property. The learned Representative further pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the income from property was actually passed on to co-owners. Therefore, according to the learned representative, the entire profit arising out of the transfer of the land has to be assessed only in the hands of the assessee. Since the assessee has not produced any evidence for development of the land; the assessing officer has rightly disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee on the so called development. Since the co owners agreement is not acted upon and the assessee has not produced any evidence for development of the property, the assessing officer has rightly computed the capital gain which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The learned DR placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of ITO Vs. K. Jayaram (1986) (Mad. HC) (168 ITR 757) and submitted the assessing officer can go into the question of validity and genuineness of the documents produced before him.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1