Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.51 seconds)

Shankar Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 21 March, 1978

(b) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom). In this case, one of the questions referred to the Bombay High Court was whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that a sum standing in the books of the assessee to the credit of a third party belonged to the assessee. The Bombay High Court discussed the nature and significance of cash credits in such cases and observed as follows (at page 734):
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 157 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 21 November, 1990

8. At the hearing before us, Dr. Pal has submitted that the said sum of Rs. 44,47,482 was not assessable in the hands of the assessee in the assessment year 1975-76. Before the Tribunal, when the matter was argued, the assessee-company submitted a paper book containing 41 pages which contained the various circulars of the Ministry of Petroleum on which the Tribunal itself had relied and which are relevant for the decision of the present case. The Tribunal referred to the said fact in paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the order. Hence, in deciding the issues, reference can be made to the materials in the paper book which was filed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. It is now well-settled that if the documents are relied upon by the Tribunal, the court can look into such documents even though such documents have not been included in the paper book (Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom) at pages 737 and 738).
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

General Beopar Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 September, 1986

(f) Orient Trading Company v. CIT . In this case, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, partly following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sharda Trading Co. [1984] 149 ITR 19, held that under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer derived the power only to assess or reassess an income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. The proceedings under the said section did not empower the Income-tax Officer to reopen the entire assessment already made. It was held further that the notice under Section 148 was deemed to be a notice under Section 139(2) only for the limited purpose of taking the aid of the relevant provisions of the Act for making an assessment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.J.H. Industries (P.) Ltd. on 26 November, 1981

According to the Tribunal, in the instant case, that was not done. With regard to the onus of proof, the Tribunal observed that the assessee should prove that the person from whom he claims to have received the money is a genuine and not fictitious person and, further, that the entry is also genuine. Thus, the initial burden is on the assessee to explain the receipt of cash and to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal applied the ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 723. It was held by the Tribunal that the assessee had discharged the initial burden. It was observed that the Department did not challenge the genuineness of the creditor. According to the Tribunal, the assessee had succeeded in proving that the creditor had the capacity to advance the loan and the entry was genuine. It further observed that the assessee could not be called upon to prove as to how and where from the creditor obtained this money, and why, it advanced the loan to the assessee. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs could not have been treated as assessee's income from undisclosed sources and it deleted the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs and also allowed the interest of Rs. 1,649.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1