Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani on 24 November, 1994

Ichalkaranji Co-Operative Spinning ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 April, 2006

Some members violated the above agreement. Request of such members to pass a resolution and acceptance of the same by the assessee is contrary to the bye-laws of the society. Learned Departmental Representative also contended that this was also not diversion of income by overriding title. For the above proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT and also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani and submitted, merely because the income is taxed in one hand, it does not necessarily mean that the income should not be taxed in the hands of the recipient.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 47 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Uop Llc vs Additional Director Of Income Tax on 8 December, 2006

23. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Kamal C. Mabhoobbani (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the facts involved were that the assessee was an individual who declared of having 21 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each totalling to Rs. 21,000. Her contention of having withdrawn the equivalent amounts of lower denomination notes from her bank account and kept the same at home before converting into high denomination notes through a family friend was not found acceptable by the AO on scrutiny of her passbook. He, therefore, treated the amount of Rs. 21,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and added the same to her total income. On appeal, this addition, however, was deleted by the AAC accepting the stand of the assessee. This relief given by the AAC to the assessee was challenged by the Revenue in an appeal before the Tribunal and additional evidence in the form of a letter dt. 3rd April, 1979 was sought to be produced by it by way of additional evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, did not admit the said additional evidence mainly on the ground that it required investigation of facts and proceeded to uphold the order of the AAC. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence sought to be produced by it, the Revenue filed a reference application before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and considering that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the Revenue was not found to be required by the Tribunal to pass the orders, no fault was found by their Lordships with the order of the Tribunal refusing to admit the additional evidence sought to be produced by the Revenue. It was observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that although the parties to appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence before the Tribunal, it has been given a power to require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pass order or for any other sufficient cause as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 47 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

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

In this connection, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Suhasinibai Goenka v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 518 (Bom) and in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani (1995) 214 ITR 15 (Bom). He further pointed out that one cannot overlook the notorious fact that in real estate transactions on-money is paid for the purchase and sale of immovable properties and this fact has been taken note by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. He further reiterated that no prudent man of the status of Dr. Tanna would surrender the income himself and secondly by offering the income himself he has stopped further investigation in the matter. These facts coupled with the facts and circumstances of the present case, clearly establish that on-money of Rs. 10.65 lakhs was paid in cash by Dr. Tanna to the assessee. He distinguished the facts of the case in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, viz.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhunjibhoy Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Dy. Cit on 18 February, 2002

In this connection, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Suhasinibai Goenka v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 518 (Bom) and in the case of CIT v. Smt. Karnal C. Mehboobbani (1995) 214 ITR 151 (Bom). He further pointed out that one cannot overlook the notorious fact that in real estate transactions on-money is paid for the purchase and sale of immovable properties and this fact has been taken note by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. He further reitersated that no prudent man of the status of Dr. Tanna would surrender the income himself and secondly by offering the income himself he has stopped further investigation in the matter. These facts coupled with the facts and circumstances of the present case, clearly establish that on-money of Rs. 10.65 lakhs was paid in cash by Dr. Tanna to the assessee. He distinguished the facts of the case in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, viz.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 32 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Bansal Ispaat (Lucknow) (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 September, 1996

17. We also agree with the learned Departmental Representative that additional evidence cannot be filed by the assessee before the Tribunal in view of the prohibition contained in Rule 29 of the Tribunal Rules. Our view finds support from the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani [1995] 214 ITR 15/81 Taxman 311. We, therefore, decline to consider the chart of comparative rates of sale filed by the learned counsel before us. We decline further to use our own discretion under Rule 29 to consider it, since even if the learned counsel is not certain whether the overall transactions were at the same price or at concessional price compared to others. The additional evidence is, therefore, rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Bermaco Enegy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs Assessee on 1 December, 2009

We find the assessee's prayer as not meriting acceptance. The power of the appellate authority to admit additional evidence, which is to be judicially exercised, considering all the fact and circumstances of the case, is increasing circumscribed by law as to procedure, getting more stringent as the appellate proceedings advance from one stage in the hierarchy to another. Case law on the matter is legion, and for which we may refer to two decisions by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, viz. CIT vs. Kamal C. Mehboobbani (Smt.) [1995] 214 ITR 15 (Bom.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next