Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing L.R. Gupta And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 4 November, 1991

M/S. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd vs Downloaded On - 09/06/2013 17:59:32 on 9 December, 2011

In the case of L.R. Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court has considered the provisions of Section 132(1) of the Act. In para 3, Division Bench has noticed that search was authorized because of information allegedly gathered about receipt of approximately Rs.30 crores by assessee from land acquisition ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:59:32 ::: 11 department. Discreet enquiries were made and it was revealed to the department that house property at Anand Lok was under
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sikkim Subba Associates vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 31 May, 2005

66. The petitioners further submitted that the information leading to the formation of belief under Section 132 has to be shown to the person concerned. It was contended that in various cases, the Department has itself shown the documents to the petitioners and no specific claim of privilege has been made in those cases. It is contended that in the present case, the respondents had neither claimed privilege nor shown or demonstrated in the affidavit or otherwise as to what other information (other than CAG report which they claim to be in their possession) was in their possession which led them to form the belief for the purposes of invoking Section 132 of the Act.. In this respect, reliance was placed on L.R. Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein it was stated that the Department had filed an affidavit and claimed privilege but subsequently, the Attorney General appeared on 30th Sept., 1981, and stated that he is not pressing the claim of privilege and that the respondents would be willing to show to the Court as well as to the petitioners the reasons which have been recorded for the issuance of the authorization under Section 131(1) of the Act.
Sikkim High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 5 - N S Singh - Full Document

Lalita Anup Anand, Mumbai vs Ito Wd 21(2)(2), Mumbai on 1 May, 2017

There should be facts before him that reasonably give rise to the belief, but the facts on the basis of which he entertains the belief need not at this stage be 23 ITA No.7415/Mum/2016 Lalita anup Anand rebuttably conclusive to support his tentative conclusion. It is, trite, that when a challenge is made to the action under s. 147 what the Court is required to examine is whether some material exists on record for the AO to form the requisite belief and the reasons for the belief have a rational nexus or a relevant bearing to the formation of such belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the said section. But the sufficiency of the grounds, which induced the AO to act under the said section is not a justiciable issue. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court duly considered the decisions in Bawa Abhai Singh vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Del) 521 : (2002) 253 ITR 83 (Del) followed; Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 112 : (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) and S. Narayanappa & Ors. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) relied on; L.R. Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 179 : (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del) applied and finally concluded that a general statement made by a director of a creditor company that it was indulging in lending its name to certain parties without naming any party did not constitute reason to believe that the petitioner's loan transaction with the said company was bogus and its income had escaped assessment on that account; impugned notice under s. 148 of the Act was quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gauthamchand Bhandari vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 February, 2005

Applying the same principle it can be held that once the assessee has unequivocally disclosed certain income during survey under Section 133A and so long as it is not retracted, it cannot be said that the same income is found during search conducted under Section 132. What remains after the declaration during survey under Section 133A is appropriately taxing the same only. This was done by the AO in regular assessment for asst. yr. 1999-2000. Since there is no material to hold that the amount declared during survey would not have been disclosed in the return of income, the same cannot be considered as undisclosed income under Section 158BB and accordingly taxed under Section 158BC. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Gupta's case (supra) relating to validity of search under s, 132 is not applicable to the facts of the case, as the assessee does not challenge the action under Section 132.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Napar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs Dcit on 30 November, 2005

11. The order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Makhni & Tyagi Pvt. Ltd. was heavily relied upon and based on the above facts, attention was again invited to page 4 of the said order so as to contend that therein the Tribunal has considered various decisions, namely, L.R. Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. - 194 ITR 32 (Del), CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain - 250 ITR 141, N.R. Paper and Board Limited and Ors. v. DCIT - 234 ITR 733 (Guj), Meda Ramaiah Setty v. CIT, Mysore - 63 ITR 245 (Mysore), Parakh Foods Ltd. v. DCIT - 64 ITD 396 and 242 ITR 42 (Mad). Relying upon the said order, it was further contended that in case the AO had any suspicion or doubt about the genuineness of the share capital , he could have issued notice Under Section 147/148 of the Act but, there is no reason or basis for him to proceed in making the addition made in the block assessment in the manner made. Referring to the synopsis filed at page 127, it was contended that the assessee company was incorporated on 2/5/88 and has been maintaining its account books in the normal course of its business of financing and dealing in shares. It was argued that the position of the filing of the returns from the assessment years 1989-90 till 96-97 had already been referred to. Thus, it was contended that once the entire share capital has been disclosed to the department by the assessee in its recorded books of accounts maintained by the assessee prior to the date of search on 19/4/96 Under Section 132 against Shri Alok Aggarwal, the provisions of Chapter XIVB could not be invoked against the assessee since the fact is not in dispute that the share capital was recorded in the account books maintained by the assessee on the basis of which it stood assessed in regular assessment proceedings year after year right upto 1996-97 assessment year.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 93 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next