Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs Klassic Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,, on 29 August, 2019
In these circumstances, we are
therefore, of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Dhariya Construction Company (supra).
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shri Bawa Abhai Singh vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 March, 2001
18. Dealing with an identical issue, this Court in the case of
Mahashay Chunnilal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and
Others (2014) SSC OnLine Del 561, while referring to the decisions
of the Supreme Court in Bawa Abhai Singh (supra) and Dhariya
Construction Company (supra) observed as under:-
M/S Mahashay Chunnilal vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors on 5 February, 2014
18. Dealing with an identical issue, this Court in the case of
Mahashay Chunnilal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and
Others (2014) SSC OnLine Del 561, while referring to the decisions
of the Supreme Court in Bawa Abhai Singh (supra) and Dhariya
Construction Company (supra) observed as under:-
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ??? ... vs Shri Puneet Sabharwal 2/6080, Dev ... on 3 December, 2010
In the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485
(Delhi), a Division Bench of this court relying on the decision of
CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Delhi) held that the
primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of
income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is
discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation
given by the DVO. It was further held that the opinion of the
Valuation Officer, per se, was not an information and could not be
relied upon without the books of account being rejected which had
not been done in that case.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Suraj Devi on 13 August, 2010
In the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485
(Delhi), a Division Bench of this court relying on the decision of
CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Delhi) held that the
primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of
income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is
discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation
given by the DVO. It was further held that the opinion of the
Valuation Officer, per se, was not an information and could not be
relied upon without the books of account being rejected which had
not been done in that case.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Naveen Gera on 17 August, 2010
The Division Bench also referred to the
decision in CIT v. Naveen Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Delhi) to hold
that the opinion of the District Valuation Officer per se was not
sufficient and other corroborated evidence was required.
1