Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-Iii vs Sh. Gopal Gupta on 16 May, 2014
Mr. Khaitan for the assessee tried to make a very rational interpretation of the
calculation made by the settlement commission, with the view to justify it. He
tried to explain the alleged expenses of Rs.272 crores which were termed
"bogus" by the revenue. He said the gross profit percentage should be taken as
the bench mark. This was done by the Settlement Commission by adding
Rs.36 crores. Adding the entire unexplained expenses of Rs.272.15 crores paid
by the shell companies would produce an absurd result. If the order of the
Settlement Commission arrived at, is not arbitrary or perverse but plausible
the court will not interfere with it. (See the Division Bench judgment of the
Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gopal Gupta reported
in (2014) 364 ITR 446 (Delhi).
Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, Madhya ... vs M/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973
The second argument was that the ratio of expenses to gross receipts as
adjudged by the Settlement Commission is in accordance with the usual ratio
for these factors in the trade of coal mine excavation, operation management
etc. Therefore, this value ought to be accepted by the Court. The justification
for this kind of acceptance is sought to be drawn from various cases on best
judgment awards. In fact, it is contended on behalf of the assessee that in the
case of organisations doing similar business, the ratio is much higher. The
gross profit rate of 41.2% was higher than the previous gross profit rate of
36%, which was even higher than that of Coal India subsidiaries which was in
the range of 22% to 38%. Honest guest work is permitted in best judgment
assessment (see Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. H. M. Abdulali reported in
(1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) at pages 275-276, 277, 278.
Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Haryana, ... on 6 October, 1978
Brij Bhushanlal
Parduman Kumar Vs. CIT reported in (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC), at page 529-
Ajmera Housing Corporation Pune vs The Income Tax Settlement Commission, ... on 11 January, 2019
In the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax reported in (2010) 8 SCC 739, the Supreme Court clearly tells us
that where the settlement commission passed a final order without considering
unexplained expenses, loans and surplus etc., the Court of jurisdiction could
interfere.
Brij Lal & Ors vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Jalandhar on 21 October, 2010
Assessment of undisclosed income can only be made following the
principle of Brij Lal & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 1.
1