N.R. Paper And Board Limited And Ors. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 March, 1998
22. According to the learned AM the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.R. Paper & Boards Ltd. (supra) was squarely applicable.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Madras vs The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.,Karur on 8 May, 1996
14. The learned JM after recording the aforesaid facts vis-a-vis the assessment order itself proceeded to record the submissions made on behalf of the assessee in para 18 of his order and those urged on behalf of the Department in para 19. As these are quite identical to those taken note of by the learned AM and which I have already reproduced earlier, I do not propose to repeat these. All that I would like to say is that as against the reliance of the assessee on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.R. Paper & Boards Ltd. (supra), the learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (1996) 220 ITR 305 (SC) and CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Calcutta National Bank Limited(In ... on 20 April, 1959
14.1. As regards the various other additions made on account of stock discrepancy, unaccounted purchases, credits in the diary of Smt. Maltiben and the unaccounted sale of scrap, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relied on the order of the AO. With regard to forfeiture of deposits from M/s Mahendra Suitings, it was submitted that the same was rightly taxed by the AO a the income of the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxmivilas Bank Ltd. (1996) 220 ITR 305 (SC).
Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, Madhya ... vs M/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973
A reference was once again made to question Nos. 46, 47 and 48 of the statement recorded on 9th Sept., 1995. The learned JM thereafter proceeded to confirm the addition of Rs. 13,36,982. Coming to the decisions relied upon by both the parties, the learned JM proceeded to distinguish the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of N.R. Paper & Boards Ltd (supra) observing that this did not help the assessee in any manner and he in turn derived support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (supra).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.K.E. Memon on 13 March, 2000
CIT v. M.K.E. Memon (2001) 248 ITR 310 (Bom), CTT v. Rajendia Prasad Gupta (2001) 248 ITR 350 (Raj), Samiat Beer Bar v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Pune)(TM) 113 : (2001) 251 ITR 1 (AT) (Pune)(TM), Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2001) 70 TTJ (Ahd) 131, Smt. Usha Tripathi v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (AS) 508, 75 TTJ 185 (sic) and D.N. Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CTT (1999) 65 TTJ (Pat)(TM) 504 : (1999) 70 ITD 77 (Pat)(TM).
Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P on 15 April, 1980
Opening balance
1,45,000
(2)
Received back from Shri Manubhai
20,000
6-4-1993
(3)
Received bank from Shri Thakorbhai
2,000
2-2-1993
(4)
Received back from Shri Manubhai
60,000
8-4-1993
The explanation of the assessee before us is that the opening balance represents the cash received by Smt. Maltiben which was given to her by her husband/brother-in-law out of cash received from four parties in respect of which the assessee admitted during the course of search under Section 132(4) that they have received the "on money" to the extent of Rs. 9,77,000. With regard to the other items, the explanation of the assessee was that these were given out of withdrawals made by her husband Shri Naresh B. Patel on 10th Sept., 1992. With regard to the amount of Rs. 60,000 received on 8th April, 1993, it was submitted that Rs. 60,000 were given by Smt. Maltiben on 27th Feb., 1993, which were received back on 8th April, 1993, and thus no addition of this amount is required to be made. In any case it was submitted before us that the benefit of telescoping of this addition should be allowed in case the addition of Rs. 9,77,000 on account of "on money" receipt is sustained. We find force in the alternative submission of the assessee. Admittedly the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 9,77,000 on account of "on money" on sales of machines to four parties and the benefit of telescoping is allowable to the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT 1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC). Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 2,27,000 made by the AO on account of credits recorded in the diary maintained by Smt. Maltiben, is directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Abhishek Corporation on 29 November, 2001
It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that will form part of the profit included in the consideration of sales. What is to be taxed in the block assessment is undisclosed income and not the undisclosed receipt. Accordingly, the addition on account of undisclosed income earned by the assessee on account of sales not recorded in the books is directed to be restricted to Rs. 40,000 which could be the net profit earned by the assessee at the normal rate which could have been earned by it on selling the alleged stock. The above view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Abhishek Corporation, reference application against which was rejected by the Tribunal vide RA No. 869/Ahd/1997 and even the petition under Section 256(2) filed by the Revenue was rejected by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Abhishek Corporation. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.
1