Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Societe Internationale De ... vs Assessee on 10 April, 2015

Dcit 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs Trinity Infratech P.Ltd, Mumbai on 6 February, 2019

a) CIT V Roman& Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) b) CIT v Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) c) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) d) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 734)(SC) e) Dr Anita Sahai v DIT (266 ITR 97)(AII) f) MODI Creations Pvt Ltd v/s. ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi) g) CIT-IV v Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd [2013 34 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat) h) CIT v Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd 158 Taxmann 440 (Delhi) (2007) i) Nemichand Kothari v CIT (136 Taxman 216) (Gau)(2004). j) CIT v value capital services (P) Ltd 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)(2008).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Burdwan vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Burdwan, Burdwan on 28 April, 2017

3. For that the appellate authority should have considered the fact that the A.O. cannot add entire amount without giving benefit of expenses.Therefore, application of peak credit is best attentive and as affirmed in C.I.T. vs U.S. Nelliapan, 66 ITR 722 (SC), Sarwpchand Kojwan vs C.I.T. 235 ITR 732 (KT), ACIT Ahmadabad vs Iqbal Shafi Mohammad Chippa, ITAT (Ahm).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Putul Jash, Burdwan vs Acit, Cir-1, Burdwan, Burdwan on 31 August, 2017

4.We have heard both the parties and perused the materials placed before us. It is a settled law that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and independent. The ITAT has sustained the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. The ITAT also noticed that there was a cash deposit in the account of all the creditors immediately before the issue of cheque to the assessee. Therefore, considering the preponderance of the probability and also considering the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Durga Prasad More vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and SumatiDayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 lTR 801(SC), sustained the addition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Managing Director vs P.P.Suresh on 29 May, 2015

27. We have also come across the decisions in 'Council of Civil Service Unions and others v. Minister for the Civil Service' [1985 AC 374] and the judgment of the Apex Court in 'J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan' [(2003) 5 ILD 130 (SC)], 'National Building Corporation v. S. Ranganathan' [JT 1998 (6) SC 21], 'Findlay v. Secretary of State of Home Department' [(1984) 3 All ER 801] and in 'R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Ruddock' [(1987) 2 All ER 518], wherein the principles of legitimate expectation and the extent of interference of the Court dependent on the said principle was considered, and laid down that: (i) the decision of the administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which were either--
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Ranjeet D Vaswani, Mumbai vs Acit 12(3), Mumbai on 19 April, 2017

7.2 It is a settled law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO's decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills vs CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga vs. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). Therefore we are not addressing to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee that consistency should be made.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhano B Vaswani, Mumbai vs Acit 12(3), Mumbai on 19 April, 2017

7.2 It is a settled law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO's decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills vs CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga vs. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). Therefore we are not addressing to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee that consistency should be made.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next