Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nathulal Agarwala And Sons on 12 March, 1985

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Warasat Hussain on 10 September, 1987

The decision of the Full Bench in CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala and Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat) laid down that the onus to discharge the presumption raised by the Explanation was on the assessee and it was for him to prove that the difference did not arise from fraud or wilful neglect on his part. The courts should come to a clear conclusion whether the assessee had discharged the onus to rebut the presumption against him.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 26 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tulshi Sao Munshi Sao on 5 May, 1986

14. The legal aspect of the matter having now been resolved by the Full Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292, there remains no doubt for a minute that the Tribunal committed a serious error of law in placing reliance upon the ratio decided in the case of Shanker Lal Kejriwal v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 541 (Pat). The assessment year in question being subsequent to the amendment brought in Section 271(1)(c) on April 1, 1964, I hold the Tribunal wrongly placed the onus upon the Department. Having held as above, the answer to the question of law for our decision is in the negative and I hold that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were not attracted. Having held as such, I further hold that the penalty was wrongly deleted.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito 3(30(3), Mumbai vs Solid Machinery Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai on 19 October, 2022

In CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [(1985) 153 ITR 2921 (Pat)] full bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court had inter alia observed, though in a slightly different context, that "As to the nature of the explanation to be rendered by the assessee, it seems plain on the principle that it is not the law that the moment any fantastic or unacceptable explanation is given, the burden placed upon him would be discharged and the presumption rebutted. It is not the law and perhaps hardly can be that any and every explanation by the assessee must be accepted.... He may not prove what he asserts to the hilt positively but as a matter of fact materials must be brought on the record to show that what he says is reasonably valid."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 October, 1997

He further observed that similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons (1985) 153 ITR 292 (Pat) (FB). The first appellate authority having so observed and considering the entry made in the seized diary about the sale consideration paid for purchase of the property at Rs. 3,76,121 against that recorded at Rs. 1,90,221 confirmed the penalty levied at Rs. 2,12,834. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the finding so given by the first appellate authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 57 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Prabhat Oil Traders vs Income-Tax Officer (No. 3) on 21 September, 1995

It has been held in the cases of CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala and Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Patna) [FB] and Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652 (P & H) [FB] that the onus of proof for rebutting the presumptions lies squarely on the assessee. However, the burden can be discharged, as in civil cases, by preponderance of evidence and it would be permissible in the penalty proceedings for the assessee to show and prove that on the existing material itself, the presumptions raised by the Explanation stands rebutted. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CITv. S. P. Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440 held that the legal fiction could be displaced if the assessee proved that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. If the assessee could do that, he could thereby throw the burden of bringing the case within Section 271(1)(c) again on the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next