Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)
Hemant Kumar Mulchandani, Jabalpur vs Dcit Circle 1(1), Jabalpur, Jabalpur on 29 November, 2022 cites

M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000

); CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation [2010] 186 taxman 105 (HP) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), set aside the impugned assessment for de novo consideration, to be made after making proper investigation and enquiries and applying the correct provisions of the Act and upon allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2080 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs Commnr. Of Income Tax on 19 April, 2018

The absence of any material to support the assessee's case being admitted, there must be something on record to exhibit the 'mistake', for which the surrounding circumstances and conduct become relevant, which we though find as consistent with the non-reporting of cash in IDS. The assessee before us relied on the decisions in Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT (CA No.4166/2006, dated 19/04/2018) and R. Natarajan vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1058/MDS/2010, dated 23/02/2012), to the effect that income cannot be taxed twice, and on Pr. CIT vs. Manju Osatwal [2022] 443 ITR 107 (Cal) and Gopalkrishnan Raj Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (in W.P.Nos. 6367 & 6374/2021, dated 22/04/2022) to the effect that where an income stands declared under disclosure (immunity scheme), the same cannot be subject to tax again.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 9 vs Manju Osatwal on 11 February, 2022

The absence of any material to support the assessee's case being admitted, there must be something on record to exhibit the 'mistake', for which the surrounding circumstances and conduct become relevant, which we though find as consistent with the non-reporting of cash in IDS. The assessee before us relied on the decisions in Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT (CA No.4166/2006, dated 19/04/2018) and R. Natarajan vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1058/MDS/2010, dated 23/02/2012), to the effect that income cannot be taxed twice, and on Pr. CIT vs. Manju Osatwal [2022] 443 ITR 107 (Cal) and Gopalkrishnan Raj Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (in W.P.Nos. 6367 & 6374/2021, dated 22/04/2022) to the effect that where an income stands declared under disclosure (immunity scheme), the same cannot be subject to tax again.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 8 February, 1963

Two, the Revenue is under no obligation to locate the source of income of the assessee, i.e., once his explanation as to the nature and source of the credit or asset under reference is found absent or as non-satisfactory, so that the same, of income nature, is deemed as his unexplained income for the relevant year (Govindarajalu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Ganpathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 393 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar on 27 April, 1964

Two, the Revenue is under no obligation to locate the source of income of the assessee, i.e., once his explanation as to the nature and source of the credit or asset under reference is found absent or as non-satisfactory, so that the same, of income nature, is deemed as his unexplained income for the relevant year (Govindarajalu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Ganpathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)).
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 72 - Full Document
1   2 Next