Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.37 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal on 29 April, 2009
vii) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22 of
2009 dated 29.4.2009] - In this case the Assessee claimed exemption of income from Long
Term Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta
Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the
transactions were bogus. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the
Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have
been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. It was also found that the
assessee produced the contract notes, details of demat accounts and produced documents
showing all payments were received by the assessee through banks. On these facts, the appeal of
the revenue was summarily dismissed by High Court.
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dolarrai Hemani, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer -Ward 34(3), ... on 2 December, 2016
17. The assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the claim of the assessee that
it earned LTCG on transactions of his investment in shares. The purchase of shares had been
accepted by the AO in the year of its acquisition and thereafter until the same were sold.
The off market transaction for purchase of shares is not illegal as was held by the decision
of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO in ITA No.
19/Kol/2014 dated 2.12.2016 and the decision by Hon'ble Calcutta High court in PCIT Vs.
BLB Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT No. 78 of 2017 dated 19.06.2018 wherein all
the transactions took place off market and the loss on commodity exchange was allowed in
favour of assessee. The transactions were all through account payee cheques and reflected
in the books of accounts. The purchase of shares and the sale of shares were also reflected in
Demat account statements. The sale of shares suffered STT, brokerage etc. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the transactions were bogus. The following
judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court:-
Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P .v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC1623, 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. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas
TeaEstate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. KesoramCotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar
and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC708; 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).
Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P .v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC1623, 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. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas
TeaEstate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. KesoramCotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar
and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC708; 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).
M/S. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd vs Gangadhar And Others on 3 April, 1963
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P .v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC1623, 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. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas
TeaEstate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. KesoramCotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar
and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC708; 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).
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia And Another on 13 December, 2007
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P .v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC1623, 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. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas
TeaEstate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. KesoramCotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar
and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC708; 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).
Rachpal Singh & Etc vs Gurmit Kumar & Etc on 8 May, 2009
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P .v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC1623, 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. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas
TeaEstate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. KesoramCotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar
and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC708; 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).
Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 28 July, 2009
"23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P .v. Chintaman Sadashiva
Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC1623, 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. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas
TeaEstate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. KesoramCotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar
and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC708; 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).