Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.74 seconds)
Ashok Kumar Banthia, Bikaner vs Dcit, Central Circle, Bikaner on 6 September, 2021 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Anandha Metal Corporation on 23 July, 2004

without any plausible reason. The A.O. was not justified in rejecting the affidavit and other material in such a manner. Whereas the affidavit of Shri Ashok Todi was supported by the statement of Ashok Todi himself, the assessee, Shri Bhaskar Poddar and also supported by extract of cash book with certificate of C.A. which at page Nos. 67-73 of the paper book, calculation of VAT from the month of April, 2011 which is at page No. 65 of the paper book, extract of sales register for the month of April, 2011 which is at pages No. 56-61 of the paper book, challan of VAT, proof of payment of VAT which is at page No. 62 of the paper book and air tickets provided by Kolkata office which are at page Nos. 63 and 64 of the paper book. These entire bunch of documents go to prove that this cash was belonging to the company namely M/s Lux Industries Ltd. and the company had shown the said amount before the Sales Tax authorities and the Sales tax authorities 17 ITA 297/Jodh/2019 Ashok Kr. Banthia vs DCIT had also accepted the sales belonging to M/s Lux Industries Ltd.. At this stage, we would like to draw support from the decision in the case of CIT Vs Anand Metal Corporation 273 ITR 262 (Mad) wherein it was categorically held that if the Sales tax authorities accept the sale belonging to a party then in that eventuality, the said findings of the Sales tax authorities are binding on the income tax authorities and the A.O., thus, in this way, the income tax authorities has not power to scrutinize the said documents again in respect of sales which have already accepted by the Sales tax authorities. As from the very beginning, it has been specifically stated by the assessee that M/s Lux Industries Ltd. had already shown this amount of sales at Rs. 25.00 lacs in their sales tax returns. Moreover, Shri Ashok Todi, director of M/s Lux Industries Ltd. has categorically mentioned that Mr.Bhaskar Poddar who has also got his statement recorded is a very junior staff and mainly looking after loading and unloading and some times preparation of invoices. It was submitted that sales are sometime recorded in draft sheets and the invoices are prepared at a later date against which VAT has also been paid and in this regard challan of payment of VAT has also been placed on record, which is at page No. 62 of the paper book which shows that the amount so carried by the assessee on behalf of the company was on account of sales collection regarding which required extracts of sales register for the period of April, 2011 has already been placed on record at page Nos.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 32 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956

10. Although, the assessee had also filed an affidavit in support of his contention but he was never cross examined by the A.O. Therefore, the averments contained in duly sworn affidavit are to be accepted as a correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. On this proposition, we found support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Vardhman Industries on 14 March, 2005

10. Although, the assessee had also filed an affidavit in support of his contention but he was never cross examined by the A.O. Therefore, the averments contained in duly sworn affidavit are to be accepted as a correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. On this proposition, we found support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Lalita Agarwal (Legal Heir Of Late ... vs Acit, Circle 68(1), New Delhi on 28 December, 2020

10. Although, the assessee had also filed an affidavit in support of his contention but he was never cross examined by the A.O. Therefore, the averments contained in duly sworn affidavit are to be accepted as a correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. On this proposition, we found support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Smt. Savitri Devi And Smt. Deeplata vs Income Tax Officer on 30 October, 2007

10. Although, the assessee had also filed an affidavit in support of his contention but he was never cross examined by the A.O. Therefore, the averments contained in duly sworn affidavit are to be accepted as a correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. On this proposition, we found support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr. Prakash Raathi vs Income Tax Officer on 28 October, 2005

10. Although, the assessee had also filed an affidavit in support of his contention but he was never cross examined by the A.O. Therefore, the averments contained in duly sworn affidavit are to be accepted as a correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. On this proposition, we found support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1