Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)
Sh. Vipin Aggarwal, Ambala vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 January, 2016 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007

In a recent judgment in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khadar Khan Son (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the finding of Madras High Court that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath, so statement recorded u/s 133 A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of the addition. The word 'may' used is section 133A(3)(iii) makes it clear that the material collected and the statement recorded during the survey u/s 133 A are not conclusive piece of evidence by themselves. The statement obtained u/s 133 A would not automatically bind upon the assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 459 - Full Document

Bachittar Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 10 March, 2015

10. The ld. DR relied upon order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that statement of the assessee was recorded during the course of survey in the presence of his counsel. Therefore, it could not be said that the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey was recorded under pressure. He has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh 328 ITR 400 (supra) and submitted that since assessee retracted from the statement around three months, therefore, retraction was not valid.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Malankara Rubber And Produce Co., & Ors. ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1972

Even the CBDT has taken cognigence of such instances which compel to issue advisory circular that while recording statement during the course of search and seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtained confession to the undisclosed income. 5.17 In the decision given in the case of Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an 21 admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Sh. Vinay Kumar Gupta vs Sh. P.K. Jain on 25 September, 2002

Gautam Ji, Pearl India, New Delhi regarding c e s s a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y wo r t h R s . 9 0 lacs of Gautam's c o m p a n y . O n t h i s l e t t e r S h . V i p i n A g g a r wa l h a d signed and cutting of date from 23.06.2009 to 2 3 . 0 3 . 2 0 0 9 o n wh i c h t h e a s s e s s e e , S h . V i p i n A g g a r wa l s i g n e d . T h e c o n t e n t i o n o f t h e a s s e s s e e t h a t h e wa s e x h a u s t e d a t 3 . 0 0 A M wh e n h i s s t a t e m e n t w a s r e c o r d e d i s a l s o n o t wo r t h a p p r e c i a t i n g b e c a u s e the assessee and his counsel, Sh. V. K. Jain put t h e i r s i g n a t u r e af t e r r e a d i n g t h e l e t t e r a d d r e s s e d t o Sh. Gautam Ji, C/o M/s Pearl India Ltd. Delhi. Further, the time of recording the statement during the course of survey is not mentioned in the survey report.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - M A Khan - Full Document

Surinder Kumar Charanjit Kumar vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 December, 2005

12. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Shiv Chand 88 ITR 293 held that " It is an established principle of law that a party is entitled to show and prove that an admission made by him was in- fact not correct and true". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber & Produce Company Ltd. 25 91 ITR 18 held that " Assessee should be given opportunity to show that admission is incorrect or does not show correct state of facts". The ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Sanieev Kumar (supra) held as under :
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next