Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.28 seconds)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... vs Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat on 16 January, 2025 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007

The Investigation Wing and the AO have not examined Mr. Nirav Shah on these credit entries. In the course of the proceedings before CIT(A), assessee filed the affidavit of Shri Himanshu R. Shah executed on 18.01.2020 retracting the admission made his statement recorded at the time of the survey. Even otherwise, the statement on oath u/s. 131(1A) cannot be taken in the course of the survey and hence the statement made by Shri Himanshu R. Shah do not carry evidentiary value. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son - 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son - 300 ITR 157 (Mad) and (iii) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT - 129 Taxman 416 (Ker). The ld. AR submitted that in the statement recorded at the time of the survey, assessee clearly stated Shri Nirav Shah was coming from M/s Nirav & Co. for taking the delivery of the goods (i.e., gold bullion). Further, in reply to Q. No. 12, assessee stated that the goods of the firm were sold in cash after 08.11.2016 in retail 19 ITA Nos.197 & 224/SRT/2022 Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi through M/s Nirav & Co. Even if it is assumed that cash received against the sales from different customers was deposited in the bank account of M/s Nirav & Co., it does not make any difference as assessee has shown the amount of Rs.34.82 crores as sales in its books of account. The statement of the assessee recorded at the time of the survey cannot be partially accepted; it should be either rejected or accepted fully.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 459 - Full Document

Dy Cit Cc-1(1), Mumbai vs Mangal Bullion P. Ltd., Mumbai on 14 July, 2023

13.6 The Ld. AR also submitted that assessee is entitled to receive cash after the demonetization as window period up to 31.12.2016 was allowed for deposit of cash. Even if it is held that assessee cannot receive cash against sales after demonetization, so far as the income tax law is concerned, the tax should be levied on real income of the assessee ignoring the infringement of other laws. For this, he relied on the decision of in case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara, in ITA No. 646/Bang/2020 (Bang. - Trib.) 13.7 Regarding decision of Vaishanavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 145 taxmnann.com 197 (Hyd. - Trib.) relied upon by the ld. CIT-DR, it was submitted that the said decision is not at all applicable in case of the assessee as in that case assessee initially accepted such income and agreed to deposit taxes as per scheme of Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016. Further, in that case, as per the report of the CFS and forensic analysis of computers, it was found that the system was shut down on 08.11.2016 but the receipts were dated of 08.11.2016. Further, in that case the gold was also not available with the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee initially admitted that the cash deposited in the bank account of the M/s Nirav & Co., represented the cash sales made by him and the AO didn't doubt the purchases against the alleged sales. The purchases made by the assessee were found to be genuine and even in the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act at the 22 ITA Nos.197 & 224/SRT/2022 Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi time of the survey, assessee stated that he made purchases from the parties of Ahmedabad.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Paul Mathews & Sons vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2003

The Investigation Wing and the AO have not examined Mr. Nirav Shah on these credit entries. In the course of the proceedings before CIT(A), assessee filed the affidavit of Shri Himanshu R. Shah executed on 18.01.2020 retracting the admission made his statement recorded at the time of the survey. Even otherwise, the statement on oath u/s. 131(1A) cannot be taken in the course of the survey and hence the statement made by Shri Himanshu R. Shah do not carry evidentiary value. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son - 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son - 300 ITR 157 (Mad) and (iii) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT - 129 Taxman 416 (Ker). The ld. AR submitted that in the statement recorded at the time of the survey, assessee clearly stated Shri Nirav Shah was coming from M/s Nirav & Co. for taking the delivery of the goods (i.e., gold bullion). Further, in reply to Q. No. 12, assessee stated that the goods of the firm were sold in cash after 08.11.2016 in retail 19 ITA Nos.197 & 224/SRT/2022 Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi through M/s Nirav & Co. Even if it is assumed that cash received against the sales from different customers was deposited in the bank account of M/s Nirav & Co., it does not make any difference as assessee has shown the amount of Rs.34.82 crores as sales in its books of account. The statement of the assessee recorded at the time of the survey cannot be partially accepted; it should be either rejected or accepted fully.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 217 - P R Raman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next