Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.51 seconds)
Davinder Singh vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 March, 2006 cites

Roshan-Di-Hatti vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 March, 1977

Further in the case of Roshan Di Haiti v. CIT (supra), the assessee carried on business of gold and jewellery in Lahore till June, 1947. In June, 1947, the assessee transferred from Lahore the sum of Rs. 12,094, Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 6,000 to banks in New Delhi. The assessee left Lahore for Mussoorie in June, 1947, with a sealed trunk containing gold ornaments, jewellery and cash which he deposited in the Imperial Bank at Amritsar. He stayed in Mussoorie till October, 1947, where he did not carry on any business or had any means of income. In October, 1947, the assessee came to Delhi and secured premises for commencing business in February, 1948. The first entry in the books of account of the assesses was dt. 30th March, 1948, bringing in an aggregate capital of Rs. 3,33,414 including gold ornaments for Rs. 1,19,320, gold rawa for Rs. 1,69,020 and stones for Rs. 4,000 and bank and cash balances amounting to Rs. 38,074. When asked to explain the source of capital brought into the business, the assessee explained that gold and other related items were brought from Lahore in sealed trunk. On enquiry, the AO found that the assessee did not have flourishing business at Lahore prior to June, 1947. The AO accepted the source of Rs. 20,000 and brought to tax remaining amount of Rs. 3,13,414 credited to the capital account as income from undisclosed sources. This matter was subject-matter of further appeal before the AAC, the Tribunal and the High Court, where addition was reduced to Rs. 2,33,414 by the Tribunal and the High Court. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was observed that the Tribunal and the High Court ought to have taken into account the fact the utter improbability amounting almost to impossibility of the assessee having earned such a large amount of Rs. 3,33,414 as profit within a few months in the disturbed conditions which then prevailed in India. It was also held that where the name and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or of other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any particular source. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on p. 940 are as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 285 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Cit vs La Medica on 15 March, 2001

Thus, the ratio of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. LA Medica (supra) "that once it was accepted that the supplies were not made by 'K' to whom payments were alleged to have been made, the question whether the purchases were made from some other source could not have weighed with the Tribunal as a factor in favour of the assessee" would equally hold good and apply to the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 114 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Devi vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 November, 1993

In the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Section 68 of the Act, refers to credits in the books of the assessee. It was held that where a partner did not maintain any books of account and a cash credit entry appeared in the books of the firm in the name of the partner, Section 68 would apply and the amount of the cash credit would be liable to be assessed in the hands of the firm because the entry appeared in the books of account of the firm which was a separate entity from its partner. In the present case also, these credits appeared in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, these are liable to be considered in the hands of the assessee as per provisions of Section 68 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 42 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next