Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)
Sarvesh Bardia,Rajnandgaon vs Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon on 23 January, 2025 cites

Sunil Bardia, Rajnandgaon vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ... on 10 October, 2023

Sarvesh Bardia Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No. 299/RPR/2024 The appellant has claimed that there was a cash balance of Rs.1,08,62,903/- in his hands as on 01.11.2016 and during the months of November and December, further cash of Rs.49,59,361/- was generated on subsequent sales. However, the appellant has deposited the cash on different dates starting from 13.11.2016 in the Bank of Baroda and on 22.11.2016 into the Bandhan Bank. When, the appellant claimed to have held such huge cash of Rs.1,08,62,903/- on 01.11.2016, prior to the demonetization, what compelled him to stay away from the depositing the demonetized cash in one go and why he had chosen to deposit the money after six days of announcement of demonetization by the Govt. The conduct and the claim of the assessee is incongruous and against human preponderance, as why he had not deposited the entire cash available with him as on the date of demonetization. The appellant either deposited its undisclosed amount or otherwise helped undisclosed, unanimous and unidentifiable persons to convert their undisclosed prohibited currency into white after notification of the demonetization.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mc Dowell & Company Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 17 April, 1985

"8.3. After going through the submissions made before me in support of appellant's contentions, I am of the considerable opinion that the entire affair of the appellant in claiming the genuine purchase transaction of stock/jewellery from the individual customers just before the demonetization in the month of October, 2016 is nothing but a colorable device within the meaning as proclaimed in the case of Mc. Dowell & Company Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 17 April, 1985 (SC). Therefore, I have no reason based on the material available with the AO, as well as submission brought in before me, to differ from him making addition of Rs.85,08,297/- u/s. 69A of the Act and the action of the- AO is upheld. Therefore, the ground no.3 of appeal is hereby dismissed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 114 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Dy Cit Cc-1(1), Mumbai vs Mangal Bullion P. Ltd., Mumbai on 14 July, 2023

Further, the appellant has found to have deposited new currency of 2000 notes to the tune of Rs.5 lacs during the demonetization period and the remaining amount of Rs.150.50 lacs were comprising of old demonetized currency. The assessee, though aware of the demonetization, claimed to have wilfully accepted the old currency from the customers and that resulted into the cash deposits into the banks on different dates, in both circumstances, the action of the assessee was not permissible in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the order of Assessing Officer was in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on a judgement by the ITAT in the case of Vaishnavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT [2022] 145 taxmann.com 197 (Hyderabad -Trib.) [28-11-2022]. Any unexplained amount credited in the books of assessee shall be deemed to be of assessee if the explanation of assessee was not satisfactory or was against preponderance of probability and evidence on record and hence, Assessing Officer was justified in making additions under section 69A treating deposits of SBNs found in its bank account as unexplained money in hands of assessee. Without prejudice to the above, though the cash deposits which were claimed to have been generated out of sales is not acceptable, an amount of deposits in new currency amounting to Rs.5 lacs which was deposited by the appellant on 30.12.2016 in his Bandhan Bank account shall be treated as amount received against sale proceeds. Therefore, the appellant get the relief of Rs.5 lacs from the entire addition of Rs.155.50 lacs. The Ground no.2 is partly allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Uttar ... vs Abdul Hai Azim Ullah on 5 September, 1968

Our aforesaid view that in a case where the A.O without making any independent enquiry to disprove the creditworthiness of the creditors, had without dislodging the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in support thereof made additions contrary to confirmations filed by the lenders, then the addition so made by him is liable to be deleted is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of CIT Vs. Abdul Aziz (2012) 20 taxmann.com.137 (Chhattisgarh). As the A.O. in the case before the Hon'ble High Court had not made any independent verification to disprove the creditworthiness of the creditors, as was established by affidavits and statements of the creditors disclosing their respective sources of income, therefore, on appeal, the said addition was vacated by the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal, which view was thereafter upheld by the Hon'ble High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next