Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Vishnu Agencies (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 August, 1978

Anuj Kumar Varshney , Jaipur vs Assessee on 22 October, 2014

against the assessee so that reply can be filed on it. The goods purchased from these parties were exported, which were under strict control of the custom department and Reserve Bank of India, therefore, purchases cannot be considered as bogus. After considering the assessee's reply, the learned Assessing Officer held that the purchases made from four parties were bogus. He further relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct, Chuhar Mal Vs. Cit (supra) for Evidence Act application, M/s Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT (supra) for payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchase, M/s Indian Woolen Carpet Factory Vs. ITAT & Ors. (Raj) (supra) and decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the VISP (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (supra) for genuineness of the purchases, CIT Vs. Golcha Prop.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parasmani Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 January, 2003

18. In my considered view, the AO was justified in disallowing the claim insofar as firstly the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the claim of rendering of services and secondly the AO on his own could also not make enquiries for the reasons that the parties were not found at the given address. The assessee had been given sufficient opportunity to establish the genuineness of the claim of rendering of services by Sri Taneja and Sri Surana. All these factors taken together do not leave any doubt in my mind that the assessee has miserably failed to discharge the onus which, according to Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd. (supra) and their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra) is upon the assessee, I, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the learned JM and hold that the AO was justified in disallowing the claim relating to service charges.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parasmani Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 16 January, 2003

18. In my considered view, the assessing officer was justified in disallowing the claim in so far as firstly the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the claim of rendering of services and secondly the assessing officer on his own could also not make enquiries for the reasons that the parties were not found at the given address. The assessee had been given sufficient opportunity to establish the genuineness of the claim of rendering of services by Sri Taneja and Sri Surana. All these factors taken together do not leave any doubt in my mind that the assessee had miserably failed to discharge the onus which, according to Honble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd. (supra) and their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra) is upon the assessee. I, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the learned Judicial Member and hold that the assessing officer was justified in disallowing the claim relating to service charges.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Krishna R. Bhat, Mumbai vs Assessee on 2 November, 2012

The same stood confirmed in appeal in view of the admitted facts, so that the so called agents had no knowledge of the assessee's business, with, in fact, even the referral work, claimed to have been undertaken, not evidenced. The ld. CIT(A) was, upon a detailed analysis of the facts of the case, of the considered view that no case for allowance stood made out, relying on the decisions, inter alia, in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC); Dy. CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 107 (Kar); and Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 754 (Cal). Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 25 February, 2002

In view of the above, the payment made by the assessee to Sri G.R. Murarka and Sri S.R. Gupta to ward off competition for the period of 10 years would be a payment for acquiring an enduring benefit which cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the latter decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Chelpark Co. Ltd. (supra), of Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Pilkington Class Works (supra), of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sauser Liquor Traders (supra) and of Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, it cannot be allowed as a deduction. The disallowance is, accordingly, upheld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next