Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal on 29 April, 2009
i) The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati
Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.25 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs Acit Circle 35, Kolkata, Kolkata on 18 August, 2017
Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017
ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017
Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt.
18/08/2017
Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017
The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had in the following cases, upheld the
claim of the assessee:-
Kiran Kothari Huf, Kolkata vs Ito, Ward 35(3), Kolkata, Kolkata on 15 November, 2017
Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017
ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017
Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt.
18/08/2017
Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017
The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had in the following cases, upheld the
claim of the assessee:-
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3 vs M/S.Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd on 17 February, 2017
CIT vs. Shreyashi Ganguli (ITA No. 196 of 2012) (Cal HC) 2012 (9) TMI 1113
CIT vs. Rungta Properties Private Limited (ITA No. 105 of 2016) (Cal HC)dt.
08/05/2017
CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal (2009 TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22
of 2009 dated 29.04.2009
C.I.T. (Central) Calcutta vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull on 12 September, 1972
In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat
Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the
onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so.
The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by
adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or
establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that
effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37
ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence.
Messrs. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 May, 1959
18. We now consider the various propositions of law laid down by the Courts of law.
That cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice has been laid
down in the following judgments:
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan on 1 November, 1960
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Shri Kanwarlal Agarwal
ITA No.296/Kol/2016
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Smt. Ganpati Devi Agarwal
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a
party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he
relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his
presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses
examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses,
would violate the principles of natural justice.
Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957
(See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma,
AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. Kesoram
Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC 708; New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 876; Rachpal Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Singh
and Ors.AIR 2009 SC 2448; Biecco Lawrie and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. AIR
2010 SC 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131).