Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 22 September, 1960
10. The question was again considered by this Court in Homi Jehangir
Gheesta v. CIT [1981] 41 ITR 135, when this Court reiterated that it was not in all
cases that by mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee, the character of a
particular receipt as income could be said to have been established ; but where the
circumstances of the rejection were such that the only proper inference was that the
receipt must be treated as income in the hands of the assessee, there was no reason why
the assessing authority should not draw such an inference. Such an inference was an
inference of fact and not of law. It was further observed that in determining whether an
order of the Tribunal would give rise to a question of law the Court must read the order
of the Tribunal as a whole to determine whether every material fact, for and against the
assessee, had been considered fairly and with due care; whether the evidence pro and
con had been considered in reaching the final conclusion ; and whether the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal had been coloured by irrelevant considerations or matters of
prejudice. It was further reiterated that the previous decisions of this Court did not
require that the order of the Tribunal must be examined sentence by sentence through a
microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion
there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law. In considering probabilities
properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the Tribunal did not indulge in
conjectures, surmises or suspicions.
M/S. Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 9 January, 2017
These
facts are conspicuously absent in the case before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
in the case of Rajmandir Estates P Ltd supra. We find that the three ingredients
of section 68 of the Act are duly fulfilled in the instant case which is not so in the
case before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. Hence the reliance placed on the
said decision by the ld DR does not advance the case of the revenue as it is
factually distinguishable as explained above.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 ... vs Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd. on 27 February, 2015
5.9. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd in
ITA 169/2017, C.M.Appl. 7385/2017 dated 14.3.2017 is well founded, wherein it
was held that :-
Vinod Solanki vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 December, 2008
5.3. We find that Mr Brij Mohan Nangalia and Mr Jaswant Kumar Nangalia had
during the course of assessment proceedings had given a statement before the ld
AO in person wherein they had accepted to the fact that their respective
companies had invested in the share capital of the assessee company and had also
retracted from the statements recorded by the DDIT(Inv.). They had also stated
the reasons as to why the statements recorded by the DDIT(Inv.) could not be
relied upon in the form of an affidavit stating that it had been obtained by
coercion. Except the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, the ld AO does not
have any corroborative evidence to come to a conscious conclusion that the
receipt of share capital by the assessee is bogus , more so in the light of his
decision taken for the immediately preceding asst year 2013-14 wherein the
receipt of share capital and share premium from very same shareholders were
accepted by the ld AO in the section 143(3) proceedings after due examination of
the same. The directors of the share applicant companies had proved with
supporting evidences that the contents of their statement were not true and as such
the same cannot be used against the assessee. We would like to place reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki vs Union of
18
19
ITA No.2215/Kol/2017
M/s Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd.
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd on 19 March, 1986
A.Yr.2014-15
5.5. We also find that merely rejecting the evidences filed by the assessee does
not entitle the ld AO to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act . Such outright
rejection of the evidences by the ld AO is totally contrary to the law as laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd
reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held that :-
1