Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Nisha Narendra Construction ... on 18 May, 2022
cites
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd on 18 March, 1986
13. The ld. CIT(A) has correctly relied on 'CIT vs. Shivakami
Company Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) ' K.P. Varghese vs. CIT' (supra). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has long since settled the law that unless
there is evidence of excess consideration having been paid in the
transaction of immovable property, no higher price can be taken
in the computation of income.
Vijay Kumar Talwar vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi on 6 December, 2010
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as
discussed herein above, the Department has failed to show as to
Page 10 of 10
how the decisions in 'Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT' (supra) and
'Sudarshan Silk Sarees vs. CIT' (supra), sought to be relied on by
the Department, stand violated.
Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 11 April, 2008
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as
discussed herein above, the Department has failed to show as to
Page 10 of 10
how the decisions in 'Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT' (supra) and
'Sudarshan Silk Sarees vs. CIT' (supra), sought to be relied on by
the Department, stand violated.
Section 69B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014
Sargam Retails Private Limted,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income -Tax,, ... on 4 September, 2020
Obviously, 'Sargam Cinema'
(supra) is applicable to the case of the assessee and the
amendment brought in concerning the provisions of section 142A
of the I.T. Act have no adverse effect inasmuch as the amended
section has expressly been made applicable w.e.f. 1.10.2014. To
reiterate, undisputedly, the year under consideration is
Assessment Year 2013-14, due to which fact, the amended
provisions, in absence of express direction to the contrary,
cannot be made applicable to the year under consideration. To
make it further clear, it would be appropriate to add that the
present provisions of section 142A(2) provide that the Assessing
Officer may make reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-
section (1) of section 142A of the I.T. Act, whether or not he is
satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts
of the assessee. Evidently, there was no analogous provision in
the section prior to the amendment. In such facts and
circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that the
Assessing Officer was not justified in referring the matter to the
DVO and adopting the valuation suggested by the DVO and
making addition on the basis thereof.