Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)
Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Jammu vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Jammu on 31 July, 2018 cites

Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Jammu vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Jammu on 17 May, 2018

Kiran Mahajan v. ITO In fact, the subsequent sales prove the inventory as on 31/3/2012, i.e., the stated utilization. The assessee's claim of having sold goods to them subsequently would need to be corroborated and exhibited with credible materials arising in the normal course of the trade. The books of account of the creditors, ledger accounts of the assessee from which for the current year stand ostensibly furnished by them, for both the years, i.e., the current and following year, as any other corroborative material qua the trade with the assessee, maintained by them, shall be relevant in this regard.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

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

As explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H), quoting from Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (at page 448 of the reports), that the onus of proving the source of the sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes being liable to tax, it is for him to show that the receipt was either not income, or if it is so, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such a proof, the AO is entitled to treat it as taxable income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 393 - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Talwar vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi on 6 December, 2010

In Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court examined the assessee's explanation of the receipt of money as being from a trade debtor, and finding the same as not proved, confirmed the addition u/s. 68. The books of account of the customers, extracts from which for the current year, stated to be furnished by them, for both the current and the following year, shall be extremely relevant in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 167 - D K Jain - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs K.S. Bhatia on 16 September, 2002

The first argument (a) only needs to be stated to be rejected. Even as stated by the ld. DR during hearing, it is not a case of estimation of income by the AO, necessitating invoking section 145(3) of the Act. This is precisely what stands held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. K.S. Bhatia [2004] 269 ITR 577 (P&H), to which, along with the decision in Asst.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 29 - V Singh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S. Kamaraja Pandian on 19 September, 1983

'Before parting, we may also address an argument raised by the ld. AR during hearing, i.e., that the addition is not sustainable in law as the assessee's books of account have not been 'rejected' by the AO during assessment. The assessee's books of account reflect a credit and, placing reliance thereon, is required by the assessing authority to prove the genuineness thereof - nothing more and nothing less. The same is as per the mandate of law (s.68), which thereby makes a departure from the normal rule that the apparent is real unless shown otherwise, and the burden to show so (otherwise) is on the person who so claims/alleges. As explained by the Apex Court time and again, it is on account of the credit appearing in the assessee's books of account, so that he is the beneficiary of the sum credited, that the law deems it to be the assessee's income unless he satisfactorily explains the same (credit) as to its nature and source. Reference in this context may also be made to the decision in CIT v. S. Kamaraja Pandian [1984] 150 ITR 703 (Mad), wherein it stands explained that in spite of the entries to that effect in his accounts, an assessee, in view of section 68, will have to establish the identity of the creditor; the capacity of the creditor to advance; and the genuineness of the transaction/s, and where the assessee does not offer any explanation about the nature and source of the cash credits or the explanation offered is not satisfactory, the same may be charged to tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Where and how, then, one may ask, does the question or the need for the AO to regard the assessee's books of account as not reliable arise for invoking the provisions of section 68 or, for that matter, sections 69, 69A, et. al, which are essentially rules of evidence. The other provisions, viz. section 69, 69A, etc. can in fact be invoked only where the Revenue discharges the primary onus on it to show the assessee to be owner of the relevant asset.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next