Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Income-Tax Officer And Anr. vs Gargidin Jwala Prasad And Ors. on 1 March, 1979

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

The CIT, in his note, distinguished the facts of the assessee's case from the facts of the cases cited before him and held that the ratio laid down in the above cases was not applicable to the facts of the present case. While concluding he held that the paper pertained to the transaction between the assessee and Dr. Tanna, the figure of Rs. 10,65 lakhs was found recorded and Dr. Tanna admitted having paid this amount to the assessee and also surrendered the same in his assessment. He concluded that no prudent person would voluntarily subject himself to substantial tax burden unless he knows that he did not earn undisclosed income. Accordingly, he held that the arguments of the assessee are devoid of any merit.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ashok Keshvlal Oswal,, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 September, 2013

5. ITO Vs Bala Prasad R. Lokmanyawar, 18 TTJ 167 (Pune) 7 3.16 The addition of the loans along with the interests has been done by the A.O. on the basis of the seized documents found during search action in the case of Shri Shriram Soni. However, no corroborative evidence had been found or has been brought on record by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings to substantiate the notings on the document found during the search action in the case of Shriram Soni. The appellant has categorically denied to have made any transaction with Shriram H. Soni and had also filed affidavit to that effect denying any such transaction with Shri Soni. The appellant has also contended that no independent evidence to support the paper entries that the appellant firm had taken cash loans and incurred expenditure in cash have been found or brought on record by the A.O. In the remand report dated 28.07.2011, the A.O. has categorically mentioned that after verification of the seized material and as per record no blank cheques or any 'promisory note' were found in the case of the appellant. It has also been mentioned that, wherever, the name 'ASHOK Oswal' appears there are no signatures. These specific findings clearly indicate that the A.O. has not identified whether 'Ashok Oswal' mentioned in the seized papers is the same as the appellant. On perusal of the assessment order also, it is apparent that no enquiry in this regard is seen to have been carried out by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings, despite the fact that the appellant had categorically denied to have had any transactions with Shriram H. Soni, however, some enquiry was carried out though with respect to the names of the individual named as 'Ashok K. Oswal' as enlisted in the telephone directory during the remand proceedings. However, in none of the cases of persons whose names were similar to that of appellant, any such transaction with Shri Shriram Soni was found by the A.O.' Even examination of Shriram H. Soni was not carried out with respect to the seized documents and which pertained to that of the appellant and even the cross-examination was also not allowed to be done during the assessment proceedings.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Geeta Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs Ito Ward 6(4), Jaipur on 18 January, 2024

It is settled and there are several judicial pronouncements on this point yet it will be sufficient to refer to Sec.142(3) of the Act itself which provides that the material collected by the ld. AO must be confronted to the assessee before making any addition. Unless the appellant was given an opportunity to cross examine, the law clearly prohibits the use of such a testimony given by the witness. Kindly refer Vimal Chandra Golecha v/s ITO & Anr. (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj.) & Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), ITO & Anr. v/s Gargidin Jwala Prasad Maholi & Ors. (1980) 124 ITR 203 (All). In these it is held that it is not a matter of merely confronting with the material but it was an obligation on the AO was obliged to have given the assessee opportunity to 14 ITA NO. 396/JP/2022 SMT GEETA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR cross examine the witness, the statement of whom are being used adversely and against the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aatithya Motels And Complex (P) Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 November, 2005

It is thus evident that Shri Shailesh Mehta and his company have been greatly benefited by setting up the case of payment of on money. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the deduction allowed to Siddharth Enterprises has been rightly allowed or not. We are concerned with the question whether addition on the basis of statement of Shri Shailesh Mehta in the hands of the assessee is justified or not. In our considered opinion, the statement of Shri Shailesh Mehta, on the facts and circumstances of the case, evidently made to gain a huge benefit (which was duly allowed) is not sufficient to make addition in the hands of the assessee. We do not know how statement of Shri Shailesh Mehta is being preferred against denial of the assessee and others. The statement of Shri Shailesh Mehta is being preferred against denial of the assessee and others. The statement of Shri Shailesh Mehta is not of much evidentiary value against the assessee. The above view is supported by decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Lata Mangeshkar as also by decision of Tribunal, B-Bench, Ahmedabad, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995) 52 TTJ (Ahd) 533 as also by decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Bala Prasad R. Lokmanyawar (1984) 18 TTJ (Pune) 167. Accordingly, we direct that addition of Rs. 7 lakhs made in the hands of the assessee be deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1