Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.29 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer-Ward 7(3) on 18 October, 2010
Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 329 ITR 110 (Del.)
Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer-Ward 8(4) & Anr. on 21 July, 2011
iv. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO & Others , 338 ITR 51 (Del.)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sidhu Rice And General Mills on 16 July, 2004
Therefore, the
reliance placed by the learned Authorized Representative on the decision of
27
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sidhu Rice &
Gen. Mills, (2005), 142 Taxman 335 (P&H) is misplaced.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii vs Sfil Stock Broking Ltd on 27 April, 2010
v. CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., 325 ITR 285 (Del.)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Spl???S Siddhartha Ltd. on 14 September, 2011
i. CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd., 345 ITR 223 (Del.)
C. Vasantlal And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 7 February, 1962
16. The next ground urged before us on behalf of the appellant is that the
assessment had been framed in violation of the principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as, the Assessing Officer had not afforded an opportunity of cross
examining the witnesses, nor confronted the evidence gathered by the
Investigation Wing of the Department. In our opinion, this is contrary to the
evidence on record. The Investigation Wing of the Department had summoned
four witnesses as well as Mr. Virendera Nehra who had given statement that on
money was paid on behalf of the HBN Group of companies to the appellant on
24th February, 2010 on which date, the appellant was asked to cross examine
them. The appellant had not availed the opportunity of cross examination that
apart the appellant is very much aware of the adverse information against him as
the same was confronted to him during the course of the statement recorded
from him by the Investigation Wing. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Sh.
Vasantlala and Co. Vs. CIT, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) has held that direct cross
examination may not be necessary, if the facts of the case show that the assessee
was in knowledge of the facts and the evidence is against him. Therefore, this
23
ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the case since the appellant was
confronted to the adverse information given against him by the said four
witnesses.