Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.28 seconds)The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Kamla Lamdmarc Enterprises,, Mumbai vs Dcit(3)(4),, Mumbai on 24 March, 2022
were made by the AO. He
brought to our notice that, similar orders were passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the
same line of reasoning confirming the action of the AO. Taking us through the
appellate orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the cases of
their sister concerns, M/s Kamla Landmarc Enterprises Vs DCIT & Others in ITA
Nos. 1365 to 1371/Mum/2019 dated 24.03.2022, he submitted that this Tribunal
had held that, the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act
alone did not constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the
unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of
any incriminating material found in the course of search.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 vs M/S Continental Warehousing ... on 9 July, 2018
However once it is not disputed by the revenue that the decision of this
Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra) would
apply to the present facts and also that there are no assessments pending on the time
of the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. The occasion to
consider the issues raised on merits in the proposed questions becomes academic.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Harjeev Aggarwal on 10 March, 2016
16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated
10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and
Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee
16
ITA Nos. 1380 to 1386 Mum 2019
Kamla Shri Builders
wherein the emphasis was given to collection of incriminating materials rather than
obtaining confession of additional income during the course of search and seizure
proceedings. No doubt, the Ld. DR placed reliance upon the case of B. Kishore Kumar
(T.C.A 738 to 744 of 2014, dated 3.11.2014) of Hon'ble Madras High Court for
considering the statement given by the assessee has good evidence value, does not
override the contentions of the Ld. AR, as the facts of the said case of B Kishore Kumar
are distinguished with the facts of the case of the Assessee mainly on the ground that the
sworn statement of B Kishore Kumar was taken by showing him the three print outs of
the amount of loan given found during the search and not recorded in his regular books of
accounts and in response to the same he admitted in his statement that there is a separate
business carried out by him the income of which is not included in his return of income.
In the case of the assessee, the statement was not recorded on the basis of any
incriminating materials found during the search.