Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
C. Sampath Kumar vs The Enforcement Officer, Enforcement ... on 16 September, 1997
22. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of C. Sampath Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate (supra) that though there is no presumption that the submission before the FERA authorities which is subsequently retracted is always 'involuntary', the Court must satisfy itself whether there was any element of 'compulsion' visible from the statement. (Emphasis, italicised in print, supplied). In that case, the statement was not furnished before the Court and, therefore, it was held that it was not possible for them to assess whether any compulsion was exercised by the Enforcement officials.
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. on 23 August, 2001
It is in this context that we need to examine the relevance and admissibility of the surrender, made by Shri Grover. The Revenue could not indicate any document which was found at the time of search and from which it could be inferred that expenditure on renovations including furniture and fixtures was incurred during the current year outside the books of account. In absence of any such material, the 'surrender' by Shri Grover does not arise form the search carried out under Section 132 of the Act. As has been held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Ramdas Motor Transport (supra), the statement recorded by the authorised officer in such circumstances cannot be said to be a statement contemplated under Section 132(4) of the Act. It has, therefore, no evidentiary value. The assessee, therefore, succeeds on this ground also.
K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April, 1992
It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of K.T.M.S. Mohammad and Anr. v. Union of India that FERA and IT Act are two separate and independent special Acts operating in two different fields and, therefore, the significance of statement recorded under the provisions of FERA must be examined only qua the provisions of FERA and not with reference to the provisions of IT Act. Further, in absence of any examination by the AO it cannot be said that any inculpatory statement was made before the tax authorities. The Supreme Court also laid down that the Court must take both the statement under Section 40 as well as the retraction and give a finding about the nature of the repudiation and it was not legally permissible for the Revenue to bisect the two statements and make use of the inculpatory one alone by passing the other.