citedby: 788654

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Udupi on 25 August, 2020

In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased gold ornaments and therefore, he should be assessed in respect of the amount mentioned therein as unexplained investment by him. In the absence of cogent evidence on record, the addition cannot be sustained.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chander-Mohan Mehta vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 January, 1999

(3) Tribunal Jaipur Bench Decision in the case of Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v. Assistant Commissioner (1992) 42 M (JP) 423 : (1992) 41 I7D 97 OP); and (4) Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench Decision in the case of Devilal Gherfial Shah v. Dy. CIT (1995) 127 CTR Mk) (Ahd) 135.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 24 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Smt. Neena Syal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 September, 1998

(iv) Devilal Gherilal Shah vs. Dy. CIT, wherein an addition made on the basis of paper seized during search which had no date or name mentioned thereon, was deleted.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 99 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Chander Mohan Mehta vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. ... on 13 January, 1999

(3) Tribunal Jaipur Bench Decision in the case of Kishanchand Sobhrajmal vs. Asstt. CIT (1992) 42 TTJ (Jp) 423 : (1992) 41 ITD 97 (JP); and (4) Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench Decision in the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah vs. Dy. CIT.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document