Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.38 seconds)
Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs Acit, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi on 12 June, 2024 cites

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs Acit, Central Circle-14, New Delhi on 15 June, 2021

Therefore, the facts in the Abhishar Builders (supra), Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra (supra), Shri Rajesh Kumar Govindlal Patel (supra) where it was held that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) is not construed to be as incriminating material. In those cases, the search action was initiated and the revenue had not found any incriminating material during the search, they proceeded to collect information post search proceedings and proceeded to make the addition u/s 153A of the Act. However, the facts are totally different in the present case, the search was initiated on the basis of information which was confirmed by the assessee in the search assessment proceedings, further, the assessee has not retracted Page | 33 ITA Nos.6743 & 6744/Del/2017 & 3623 to 3627/DEL/2016 And ITA Nos. 6767 ,6769,7756 to 7759,7760/Del/2017 Rajinder Kumar means he has accepted, it goes to prove that the information with the revenue is substantially correct. Hence the material with the revenue has to be considered proper and the action of the AO to accept the revised return of income and proceeded to complete the assessment goes to prove that the material with the revenue can be assessable u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, we have no choice but to reject the contentions of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 94 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri Vetrivel Sundaresan, Chennai vs Acit, Chennai on 3 August, 2017

46. After considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V (supra); Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vetrivel Mineral (supra) as well as on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered we that the four conditions stipulated in section 65B(2) i.e., (a) to (d) along with section 65B(4) were not followed while obtaining the Certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 in the case of the assessee which are to be followed mandatorily. Therefore, we Page | 15 ITA Nos.6743 & 6744/Del/2017 & 3623 to 3627/DEL/2016 And ITA Nos. 6767 ,6769,7756 to 7759,7760/Del/2017 Rajinder Kumar have no hesitation to hold that this Certificate is not a valid Certificate as prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and hence cannot be enforced. Therefore, the Certificate obtained in the case of the assessee cannot be regarded as a legally valid certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the same has no recognition in the eyes of law. The information contained in the seized pen drive is could not be considered as admissible evidence as per the provisions of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that such inadmissible seized material is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee on 31-3-2022 is not a valid assessment order in the eyes of law and it deserves to be set aside.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dcit - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs Shree Vaishnav Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai on 13 December, 2017

In DCIT v. Bank of India [ITA No. 3082/2015/ITAT Mumbai 08.11.2017] (Relevant para: 5 & 12, Page 551-561 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) relate to the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2009-10 regarding taxability of business income earned in another state. It related to India-Kenya treaty for income from house property. ITAT relied upon its own rulings for AY 2004-05 and AY 2003-04, Therein it was held (relying on text the Article 7 of DTAA states that if the enterprise of one State carries on business in another State through permanent establishment) that the State where the business is carried out alone would levy tax on the profits attributable to the permanent establishment. Similarly, for AY 2009-10 with regards to DTAA between India and Kenya, the ITAT took note of Notification No. 91/2008 and held that any notification or circular cannot alter the nature of income that has been specifically included in DTAAs. Even amendment in a section of the Act would not affect the provisions of tax treaties unless same are not ratified by both the signatories of the treaty. Therefore, for AY 2009-10 it was held that house property income had to taxed as per Article 6 of the DTAA and as per that article income from Kenyan house property could not be taxed in India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Godrej Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Now ... vs Dcit 14(1)(2), Mumbai on 26 November, 2021

3.20. The above order of the ITAT in Essar Oil case is contrary to the principles flowing from the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, [2010] 328 ITR 81, dated 12.08.2010 (Relevant para 65, 66 & 67, Page 638-676 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2) and the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., [2018] 300 CTR 561 dated 31.01.2018 (Relevant para: 23 & 48, Page 677-692 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2. These judgements were no doubt in the context of Rule 8D and Section 14A of the Act and not in the context of Notification 91/2008 dated 28.8.2008. However, these judgements have held that the Rules/notifications issued under the fiscal statutes will be, unless otherwise expressly provided, prospective in nature.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 276 - Full Document

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 1 June, 2021

a) Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney vs. DCIT (supra) (Relevant para: 8, 8.1, 8,2, Page 171-184 of case law compendium, Volume 3.1) No addition could be made of any unexplained bank deposits or interest earned thereon in the case of assessee for the relevant AYs i.c., 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 as by virtue of Notification No. 2903 (E) dated 27.12.2011 no information was provided by Swiss Authorities for the period prior to 01.04.2011.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 43 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next