Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.59 seconds)Greenview Restaurant vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 July, 2003
In the case of Greenview Restaurant v. Asstt. CIT , the partners of the firm made a disclosure of income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) on 22-9-1993 in the presence of two independent witnesses. The said surrender was retracted by the partners by letter dated 24-12-1993 and 20-2-1995. The Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of the amount surrendered in the statement under Section 132(4). The addition was disputed by the assessee and ultimately following question was referred to the Hon'ble High Court for its esteemed opinion:--
Income Tax Officer vs Sadhu Ram Gupta Steels on 28 November, 1997
"Similarly, the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Sadu Ram Gupta[1998] 66 ITD 441 (SMC) and Smt. Vasanthi Sethi v. Asstt. CIT [1992] 43 LTD 447 (Delhi) are claimed to be not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that on the contrary, the following decisions support the case of the assessee:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Banta Singh Kartar Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 October, 1979
The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT was stated to be not applicable to the facts of this case.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M. Rm. K. Pl. Firm on 6 August, 1979
In the case of CIT v. M.R.P. Firm , Their Lordships of Supreme Court held as under:--
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rameshwar Soni vs Asstt. Cit (Inv), Circle-3 on 24 June, 2005
The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal (Third Member) in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. Asstt. CIT[2000] 74 ITD 25 and the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal (Third Member) in the case of Rameshwar Lal Soni v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 301 in support of the contention that the Third Member should not be guided by the language of the point of difference and that he is required to decide the actual point of difference arising out of the respective orders of the Members of the Bench.
Smt. Vasanti Sethi vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 7 August, 1992
Similar position was considered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Vasanthi Sethi v. Asstt. CIT[1992] 43 ITD 447 in which case also the initial admission made by the assessee was held to be valid and the subsequent retraction was disregarded. In view of the legal and factual position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,98,440. By reversing the impugned order, we restore the assessment order on this score.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 2 February, 1984
In the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. (supra), Their Lordships of Supreme Court held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and that it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect.