Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Abhilasha Jain, Jaipur vs Dcit, Circle (Int. Tax), Jaipur on 7 July, 2022
3. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench "B", Jaipur in the case of Abhilasha
Jain Vs DCIT, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur [ITA No. 05/JP/2022] by relying on the
judgement of the ITAT, Hyderabad(supra) allowed the appeal of the appellant
and held as under:
Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956
ITA NO.988/JP/2024
SHAMBHU DAYAL VS ITO, WARD 2 (2), KOTA
"In arriving at the above decision the High Court referred to the cases of Mehta
Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income tax Bombay (1) and Chunilal Ticamchand
Coal Co., Ltd. Commissioner of Incometax, Bihar and Onssa (2) in therefore, clear
that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in
suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a
sies of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were
such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law
could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and this Court is
entitled to interfere
We are therefore of opinion that the High Court was clearly in error in answering
the referred question in the affirmative. The proper answer should have been in
the negative having regard to all the circumstances of the case which see have
adverted to above.''
Sh. Raghav Kumar, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 30 August, 2017
vi. The appellant also submits with regard to Decision of CIT(A) is self explanatory. No
the objection of the Ld. CIT(A) in para 8.3.1 counter submission is required.
of the order where the Ld. CIT(A) stated
that 'the appellant had not provided any
reason why he had been withdrawing the
money when he already had huge cash in
hand" and in para 8.3.2; "the appellant had
not furnished any explanation as to why he
had deposited money in one account by
withdrawing from another". In this regard,
the appellant wants to submit that it is not
illegal either to withdraw money even after
having huge cash or deposit money in one
account by withdrawing from another". In
this regard, the appellant wants to submit
that it is not illegal either to withdraw money
even after having huge cash or deposit
money in one account by withdrawing from
another. As and when the need arises the
appellant use to withdraw the amount from
the bank or deposit the same in the bank
account. Therefore, confirming addition on
this ground is purely addition on the basis
of suspicion or presumption. We find force
in this regard from the judgement of
17
ITA NO.988/JP/2024
SHAMBHU DAYAL VS ITO, WARD 2 (2), KOTA
Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow in the case of DCIT
Vs Smt. VeenaAwasthi [ITA No.
215/LKW/2016] dated 30.11.2018 wherein
it was held as under: