Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Additional Income-Tax Officer vs T. Mudduveerappa Sons on 23 December, 1992

Surendra M. Khandhar vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 December, 1999

(1) M.A. Chidambaram's case (supra), (2) Udeyraja Goliya's case (HUF) (supra) Even assuming that the paper had been seized from the assessee, it is argued that the transaction has to be proved by the department, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Mohanlal Vig ( ) 139 ITR 681(P&H) and by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in T. Mudduveerappa & Sons' case (supra). The following points are also made in the written submissions :
Bombay High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhanji R. Zalte vs The Asstt. C.I.T. on 13 September, 2002

14. Now coming to the case law relied upon by the ld. counsel of the assessee, heavy reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of D. Halappa & Sons (supra). According to us, the said case has no relevance to the facts of this case. In the said case assessee agreed for levy of minimum penalty. It was found that the facts arranging levy of penalty do not exist. Therefore, it was held that no penalty is leviable despite the fact that the assessee had agreed for levy of minimum penalty. In the present case, the admission of the assessee was regarding loans obtained and not for levy of penalty thereon. So the decision of Mysore High Court in D. Halappa & Sons. (supra) has no application to the facts of the case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next