Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.38 seconds)Section 292C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
Considering the aforesaid principles which have been laid down, we are of
the opinion that the materials in question are not good enough to constitute
offences to direct the registration of F.I.R. and investigation therein. The
materials should qualify the test as per the aforesaid decision. The
complaint should not be improbable and must show sufficient ground and
commission of offence on the basis of which registration of a case can be
ordered. The materials in question are not only irrelevant but are also
legally inadmissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, more so with
respect to third parties and considering the explanation which have been
made by the Birla Group and Sahara Group, we are of the opinion that it
would not be legally justified, safe, just and proper to direct investigation,
keeping in view principles laid down in the cases of Bhajan Lal and V.C.
Shukla (supra).
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common
Cause vs. Union of India (2017) 30 ITJ 197 (SC) has again placed reliance
on its earlier decision in the case of V.C. Shukla. The contention of the
appellant that, no action has ever been taken against the appellant by the
Enforcement Directorate or any other agency against the appellant has
also been found reasonable and logical. The appellant been found
indulged in any such hawala activities, the alleged transaction having
taken place nearly 10 years back, some action would have been taken by
the Enforcement Agencies. In my view, the findings of the AO that the
appellant could not produce his passport due to misplacement thereof or
his nexus with Shri Nilesh Ajmera , Shri Ritesh Ajmera etc., even if taken
to be true, could not be a reason for holding that the appellant made any
undisclosed investment in any property at Dubai. Even in my view, the
findings of the AO in respect of a loose paper found and seized from the
premises of some Shri Omprakash Dhanwani has no nexus with the issue
in hands. In my view, the AO has relied upon the extraneous
considerations for justifying his action of making the addition.
Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954
6.6 We also find that for adjudicating the issue and deleting the
addition, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly placed his reliance on the
decisions of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 754
34
Chitresh Mehta,AY 2009-10
IT(SS) No.260/Indore/2019 & CO,
(SC), CIT Central & United Provineer Vs. Laxmi Narain Badre Dass
(1937) 5 ITR 170 (SC), Pr. CIT vs. Shri Pukraj Soni (2019) 34 ITJ 489
MP (HC.), CIT vs. Anil Khandelwal (2015) 93 CCH 0042 (Del.
Dcit, Cc-Ii, Chandigarh vs M/S Steel Strips Wheels Limited, ... on 27 May, 2019
), Bansal Strips
(P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ (Del) 665, ACIT vs. Dr. Kamla
Prasad Singh (2010) 3ITR (Trib) 533 (Pat), ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan
(2008) 5 DTR (Jab) (Trib) 202, Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT (2006) 282
ITR 553 (Guj.)
6.7 We thus find material substance in the contentions of the
Ld.AR that merely on the basis of said loose paper, additions of
Rs.5,60,50,000/- and Rs.15,40,00,000/- respectively were also
made in the hands of Nilesh Ajmera and Ritesh Ajmera in the
assessment orders passed in their cases under the provisions of
section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
for the relevant assessment year. Against these assessment orders,
both Nilesh Ajmera and Ritesh Ajmera had preferred separate
appeals before the then CIT(A) and the then CIT, vide his separate
orders dated 28-03-2013 in Appeal No. 7/IT-922/11-12 in the case
of Nilesh Ajmera and in Appeal No. 7/IT-872/11-12 in the case of
Ritesh Ajmera, had deleted the additions made in the hands of the
aforesaid assessee(s). It has further been submitted by the assessee
that against the aforesaid orders of the then Ld.CIT(A) in the case of
Nilesh Ajmera and Ritesh Ajmera, being the persons in whose cases
the subject loose papers were seized, the revenue had preferred
appeals before this Tribunal and this Tribunal, in the case of
35
Chitresh Mehta,AY 2009-10
IT(SS) No.260/Indore/2019 & CO,
Nilesh Ajmera, vide its order dated 17-05-2016 in Appeal Nos.
IT(SS)A Nos. 182 to 184/Ind/2013 & ITA-538/Ind/2013 and in the
case of Ritesh Ajmera vide its order dated 05-05-2016 in Appeal
Nos. IT(SS)A 190 to 192/Ind/2013, had dismissed the appeals of the
Revenue thereby confirming the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting
the said additions. The copies of the Orders passed by this Bench,
deleting the entire additions on the basis of subject loose papers, in
the case of Ritesh Ajmera are filed at page no. 123 to 184 of the
assessee's Paper books and in the case of Nilesh Ajmera at page
no. 185 to 303 of the assessee's paper book.