Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.56 seconds)Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem vs K. Chinnathamban on 24 July, 2007
3) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that cash deposit in bank should be
explained by assessee, otherwise it is unexplained income u/s.69 or 69
B as held by Supreme Court in the case of Cit Vs K.Chinnathamban (SC)
232 ITR 682 and also ITAT, Special bench, Delhi held the same view in
the case of Manoj Aggarwal VS DCIT 113 ITO 377.
Roshan-Di-Hatti vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 March, 1977
8) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that onus of providing source of an
asset is on the assesseeif assessee disputed liability to tax - he has to
prove it as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Roshan D.Hatti Vs
CIT 107 ITR 938.
Garibdas Chandrika Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 April, 1997
Udaichand Megaji Vs. ClT(Kar) 150 ITR
39 and Garibdas Chandrika Prasad Vs CIT (MP) 230 ITR 771.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs K.I. Pavunny on 6 February, 1998
9) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that unexplained gold/stock seized
from assessee's premises - unless cogent evidence is adduced by the
assessee, it would have to be presumed that the articles recovered from
his premises belonged to him and they were acquired in the year in
question and they represented the concealed income of the year in
question itself justifying addition u/s. 69A as held in the cases of CIT Vs.
K.I.Pavunny (Ker) 232 ITR 837.
1