Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 80 (0.47 seconds)
Madan Mohan Gupta , Kota vs Ito Ward 1(3) , Kota on 7 August, 2024 cites

Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995

The learned assessing officer relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 125 CTR 124. The learned authorized representative vehemently opposed the same and stated that long-term capital gain were originally disclosed by the assessee in his return of income for earlier assessment years for assessment year 2010 - 11 and 2011 - 12, which were assessed under section 143 (3) of the Income tax act. Therefore, it is not the case of the revenue that there are no positive evidences produced by the assessee. Even in those cases, the assessee has produced complete details of the purchase, share applications, payment by cheque, sale on a stock exchange, receipt of sale consideration and most importantly the holding period of those shares in the balance sheet of the assessee's which were accepted by the revenue for all those years. He therefore submitted that the theory of preponderance of probabilities invoked by the learned assessing officer is merely a conjecture and surmise. He further stated that when originally the assessees are assessed under section 143 (3) of the act, long-term capital gain were accepted after detailed enquiries, now it cannot be said that the capital gain earned by the assessee is to be taxed u/s 68 of the act on the principles of preponderance of the probabilities. He further submitted that it was argued before the bench in appeal from earlier years that no incriminating evidences were found during the course of search. The order is awaited. He further stated that the preponderance of probabilities would come into play only when the basic test of direct and factual evidences fails. He stated that in the present case the complete evidences have been placed by the assessee before the revenue authorities, they are not found to be false but only allegation 27 ITA NO. 246/JP/2024 MADAN MOHAN GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA has been made that transactions are sham. He further stated that the decision relied upon by the learned AO of honorable Supreme Court is quite distinct on its fact. On careful analysis of the evidences placed before us, findings rendered by the lower authorities, we proceed to consider the taxability of the long-term capital gain earned by the assessee under section 68 of the income tax act whether in situations like this, one may fall into realm of "preponderance of probability" where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. However, the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected. Here, in this case, material facts strongly indicate a probability supported by the evidences produced by the assessee that assessee has earned long-term capital gain on sale of the shares. The another very strong probability arises is that assessee has introduced its unaccounted money in the guise of profit on sale of shares holding it is a long term capital gain and showing it is a tax exempt income. The probable factors could have gone against the assessee, only if -
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1298 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Jaipur vs Smt Pooja Agarwal on 11 September, 2017

He has placed reliance on the decisions of jurisdictional High Courts in the case of CIT Vs. Pooja Agarwal, and PCIT Vs. Pramod Jain & Ors. Considering the above facts and circumstances and taking into consideration, the various documentary evidences furnished by the assessee in support of his claim and further relying upon the decisions of this tribunal as well as decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court including the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Pooja Agarwal (supra) and in the case of PCIT Vs. Pramod Jain & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 48 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015

10. Copy of ITR and Computation for AY 2012-13 59-62 On the other hand, the AO has merely relied upon the statement of third person recorded behind the back of the assessee and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the person before using these statements against the assessee. The ld. AR has submitted that despite specific request opportunity of cross examination was not provided, which is against the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE (324) ELT 641, wherein Hon'ble Court has stated that not allowing the opportunity to cross 46 ITA NO. 246/JP/2024 MADAN MOHAN GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA examine the witness though the statement of those witness were made the basis of impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order a nullity is as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice. The AO has ignored this binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. On this issue, the Ld. CIT(A) has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Swati Bajaj of hon'ble Calcutta High Court and has highlighted the relevant portion of the judgement The assessees have not been shown to be prejudiced on account of non-furnishing of the investigation report or non-production of the persons for cross examination as the assessee has not specifically indicated as to how he was prejudiced, coupled with the fact as admitted by the revenue, the statements do not indict the assessee and submitted that the judgement of Andaman Timber is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 602 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next