Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
H. N. Agri Service Private Limited, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2023
cites
Income Tax Officer vs Rakesh Singh. Ito V. Prem Singh. (Ita No. ... on 30 September, 1996
Income Tax Officer Vs. Atul Kumar Mittal, ITAT
Delhi, ITA No. 885/Del/2012 Asstt. Year 2007-08:- When
The debtor was considered genuine at the end of preceding
year, the receipt from the said debtor during the year under
consideration cannot be treated as bogus.
The observation of the Bench is extracted as follows: -
Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Uttar ... on 18 February, 1957
In arriving at the above decision the High Court referred to the
cases of Mehta Parikh & Co.'s case (supra) and
ChunilalTicamchand Coal Co. Ltd.'s case (supra)
It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the
conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicions,
conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or
upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be
entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting
judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could
have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and
this court is entitled to interfere.
Section 115BBE in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
M/S. I.P. Rings Ltd., Chennai vs Dcit, Chennai on 28 July, 2017
3.Racmann Springs (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (1995) 55
ITD0159.TheITAT Delhi Bench has observed that realisation
from Sundry Debtors cannot be treated as cash credits. The
observation of the Bench is reproduced as below: -
"35. The CIT (Appeals) proceeds on the basis that the impugned addition
of Rs. 15,59,845 is made as the assessee was not able to prove the cash
credits. This is evident from para 29 of his order. He speaks of identity
and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Assessing Officer never held
that the said amount represents unproved credits. The Assessing Officer
only held that it represents "undisclosed sales of the assessee". This shows
the utter confusion in the mind of the CIT (Appeals) which led to the
dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
1