Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.42 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 115BBE in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 270A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sunita Gupta, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 17 April, 2018
11. The assessee had disclosed 1,875 grams of gold under VDIS, 1997. The
ld.CIT(A), following the coordinate bench decision in Sunita Gupta vs DCIT (ITA
No.5295/Del/2013, dated 17.03.2016), accepted the assessee's explanation that the
form or design of the jewellery might have changed over time but the quantity was
consistent. Therefore, we find no infirmity in this finding. Once income has been
voluntarily disclosed and taxed, the same cannot be taxed again merely for change in
form.
M/S. K L S E H Co-Operative Society Ltd.,, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 12 July, 2023
25. Before parting, we note that the assessee's reliance on the decision in the case
of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income in
W.P.(MD)No.2078 of 2020, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court held that
the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act is applicable only from A.Y. 2018-19. In
the present case, since the addition is made for the A.Y. 2017-18, the provision of
section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity
in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and hence confirm the order of the ld.CIT(A).
Sh Vibhu Aggarwal, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 4 May, 2018
and Vibhu
Aggarwal vs. DCIT. (2018) 93 taxmann.com 275 Trib.) wherein it has been held that
keeping in mind the high income reported by the respective assessee and having regard
to wealthy family status where gifting of jewellery is customary, the explanation offered
by the assessee towards holding gold and ornaments in excess of CBDT instruction was
treated as explained.
The Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 1 November, 1962
"The judgment of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd.'s case (supra) was based
on a detailed examination of the Subsidy Scheme formulated by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh. It stated that incentives would not be available
unless and until production had commenced. In that case, the Court found that
incentives were given by refund of sales tax and by subsidy on power consumed
for production. In short, on the facts and circumstances of that case, the Court
came to the conclusion that incentives were production incentives in the sense
:-21-:
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
In the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers [1971]
82 ITR 50 (SC)[05-08-1971], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - Section
17(1) of 1922 Act can apply to a 'person'. The expression 'person' is defined in
section 2(9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm
can be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern
the assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is
defined differently. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition
contained in section 2(31) of the 1961 Act is an amendment of the law or is
merely declaratory of the law that was in force earlier. To pronounce upon this
question, it may be necessary to examine various provisions in the Act as well
as its scheme. Thus, the question whether section 17(1) was applicable to the
case of the assessee-firm was not free from doubt. Therefore, the ITO was not
justified in thinking that on that question there could be no two opinions. It was
not open to the ITO to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the
Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the 1961 Act. A mistake apparent on
the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can
be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there
may conceivably be two opinions. Thus, the ITO was wholly wrong in holding
that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the
assessee-firm. The revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed. The case was
decided in favour of assessee.