Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading ... on 22 June, 1972

Guruprena Enterprises, Mumbai vs Assessee on 24 March, 2003

In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Bombay City-II Vs. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Company 90 ITR 396 bears special mention. As may be seen, in essence, in the former decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an addition on account of cash credit cannot be justified without 29 examination of creditworthiness of the lender or mere non-appearance in compliance to summons cannot justify an addition on the ground of non submission alone when it is in the knowledge of the Revenue that names and addresses of the creditors and their index numbers are there. In similar vein, in the latter case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that if the parties have received the summons and not appeared and the Income-tax Officer had not brought on record any evidence to show that the assessee's explanation was untrue, an addition of income as undisclosed sources cannot be justified. Tested on these touchstones, I see that in this category the addition has been made on only the non-submission of reply to summons without any specific adverse finding on the details and documents submitted by the appellant. In this light, the addition in respect of this category of depositors is not justified. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the additions made in respect of these parties."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.W Promotions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 20 December, 2012

3.13 We have also carefully gone through the various judgments relied upon by the ld. AR which in our view are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. U.M. Shah (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra), related to cash credits, and, therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case which is regarding allowability of expenses for services rendered.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,, Pune vs Assessee on 24 April, 2014

); CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC); CIT v. U. M. Shah 90 ITR 396 (Bom) etc. 3.13 As the matter stands, both the assessment order and impugned order of learned CIT(A) are based on no material against the appellant. After leaving out material evidence furnished by the appellant the Assessing Officer states that he carried out some enquiry. Even this so called enquiry has not brought out any material or evidence against the appellant. The entire assessment order is strewn with suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Such an assessment is legally unsustainable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 15 February, 2021

In the case of CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that, if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the assessee could not be blamed. In view of the above facts and circumstances, cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- appearing in the bank statement also stands fully explained and substantiated, therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition made.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next