Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)
Bajrang Singh Choudhary, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 7 February, 2018 cites

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Anr. vs Income-Tax Officer, "B"-Ward And Anr. on 24 November, 1976

Moreover, A bare perusal of the remand report para 1 (PB 29) clearly suggest that the revenue itself has admitted that it was not served in any case on 31.03.2014 inasmuch as the AO has clearly admitted that it was entered in the dispatch register at no.9382 only on 30.03.2014 and thereafter, it was sent through Indian Postal Service and it was handed 5 ITA No. 1013/JP/2016 Shri Bajrang Singh Choudhary vs. ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur . over to the P&T department only on 31.03.2014. It is nowhere claimed that the impugned notice was sent through registered AD only and therefore, the revenue could not have taken the benefit of the presumption raised u/s 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Such evidence was not confronted to the assessee. Even the ld. CIT(A), has not applied her mind on this aspect. She rejected the contention merely on suspicion. The ld. AR submitted that even making of entry in the dispatch register is not sacrosanct.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Kulwant Rai on 13 February, 2007

8.2 Also refer CIT vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) para 16-17 Read held "Search and seizure--Block assessment-- Computation of undisclosed income--Cash found during search--Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 2 lakh from bank some time back and there is no material with the Department to show that this money had been spent and was not available with the assessee--Tribunal has found that the withdrawals shown by the assessee are far in excess of cash found during the course of search--In the absence of any material to support the view that the entire cash withdrawals must have been spent by the assessee, Tribunal was justified in holding that the addition was not sustainable--Order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a substantial question of law"
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 36 - V B Gupta - Full Document

Y. Narayana Chetty & Another vs The Income-Tax Officer, Nellore And ... on 15 October, 1958

• Y. Narayana Chetty & Anr. v/s ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) • R.K. Upadhyaya v/s Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC) He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the impugned notice was never served upon the assessee. Even the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The same was delivered to some villager through whom, the assessee came to know. Similarly, three penalty orders u/s 271B, 271(1)(c) and 271F all dated 29.06.2015 were also passed ex-parte and was never served upon the assessee hence, when came to know from the department, certified copies have been supplied on 3rd January 2018.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 197 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next