Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (4.24 seconds)
Dcit Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs Anupama P Jain, Mumbai on 6 October, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Cental) vs Smt.Neena Jain C/O M/S Sweety Fabrics ... on 19 February, 2010

Asst. CIT vs. Smt. Anupama P. Jain "6.1 The construction of the provisions of Explanation 5 put-forth by Ld. DR on the basis of aforementioned instruction no.1882 are totally contrary to the aforementioned decision of Hon'ble Madras High court and the aforementioned decisions of other Benches of ITAT. These instructions are issued by CBDT on 5.6.1991 when the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court is dated 9.12.2003. During the course of hearing Ld CIT DR was required to place on record any decision of any court in which the view conveyed by the CBDT in aforementioned Instruction No.1882 is adopted, he was unable to cite any such decision.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - M S Sullar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mahendra C. Shah on 5 February, 2008

6.2 Before, parting with the appeals of the Revenue, for the sake of completeness we may mentioned here that even though it is not the case of AO that assessee did not specify in the statement made u/s 132(4) the manner in which the additional income was derived, but during the course of hearing of the appeal it was clarified by ld. AR that assessee was never asked to describe the manner in which he has derived such additional income and it was submitted that during the course of hearing before Ld CIT(A) assessee had placed reliance on various decision in which it was held that where assessee has not been asked with such question that in what manner such income has been derived and the income has been offered and taxes have been paid then it will be sufficient compliance of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). He in this regard referred to the 9 ITA No. 925/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2006 -07) Asst. CIT vs. Smt. Anupama P. Jain decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305/ 172 Taxman 58 and the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha, Kishan Goesl [2005) 278 ITR 454/[2006) 152 Taxman
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 162 - Z K Saiyed - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Radha Kishan Goel on 21 April, 2005

6.2 Before, parting with the appeals of the Revenue, for the sake of completeness we may mentioned here that even though it is not the case of AO that assessee did not specify in the statement made u/s 132(4) the manner in which the additional income was derived, but during the course of hearing of the appeal it was clarified by ld. AR that assessee was never asked to describe the manner in which he has derived such additional income and it was submitted that during the course of hearing before Ld CIT(A) assessee had placed reliance on various decision in which it was held that where assessee has not been asked with such question that in what manner such income has been derived and the income has been offered and taxes have been paid then it will be sufficient compliance of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). He in this regard referred to the 9 ITA No. 925/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2006 -07) Asst. CIT vs. Smt. Anupama P. Jain decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305/ 172 Taxman 58 and the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha, Kishan Goesl [2005) 278 ITR 454/[2006) 152 Taxman
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 96 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next