Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.49 seconds)Section 132 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
CJT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar's case (supra), CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Ors. case (supra) and ITO v. Bala Prasad R. Lokmanyawar's case (supra) have no application to the facts of the present case as they are distinguishable on facts.
Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Lata Mangeshkar on 20 June, 1973
However, in the case of the assessee before us, there is direct evidence in the form of seized paper and spontaneous statement of Dr. Tanna recorded during the course of search and there is no infirmity of the like, in the case of Miss Lata Mangeshkar (supra) in this direct piece of evidence.
Chuharmal S/O Takarmal Mohnani vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M.P., ... on 2 May, 1988
In Chuharmal's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is riot applicable to the income-tax proceedings. But it did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. Further, Evidence Act embodied a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence, viz. where a person was found in possession of anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner was on that person. This principle could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfy its conditions and was applicable to taxation proceedings. Following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this case when this piece of paper was admitted by Dr. Tanna and he has also made a statement that he has paid Rs. 10.65 lakhs in cash for the purchase of the flat from the assessee out of his unrecorded income and no material has been brought on record to controvert this fact, the irresistible conclusion is that this piece of paper speaks of true nature of the transaction taken place between Dr. Tanna and the assessee. Otherwise, Dr. Tanna may hot have offered Rs. 10.65 lakhs for taxation if he had not paid this amount to the assessee.
C. Vasantlal And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 7 February, 1962
In the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed that the ITO is not bound by any technical rules of the law of
evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by
private enquiry. But if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee
must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of
explaining it. In the present case, the statement of Dr. Tanna recorded during
the course of the search was the material on which the AO had acted upon.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 November, 1970
He further observed that in view of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) and the decision of the apex Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. 1TO (1991) 191 ITR 662 (SC), no assessment can be made merely on the information received from other authorities.
V. Kunhambu And Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 December, 1995
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of V. Kunhambu & Sons v. CIT (supra).
Kishinchand Chellaram vs The Commr. Of Income-Tax Bombay City Ii, ... on 16 September, 1980
Further, my attention was invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chettaram v. CIT (supra) for the proposition that proceedings under the IT Act governed by the strict rules of evidence. However, if the authorities want to rely on certain document an opportunity to cross-examine should always be given to the assessee. Therefore, the back side of the loose paper cannot be considered as an admissible evidence and material and consequently it should be excluded for the consideration on merits.