Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.44 seconds)
Acit Cc 6(4), Mumbai vs Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai on 8 April, 2024 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007

1.3 The AR relied on various judgments to the fact that Section 133A does not empower the AO to record the statement on the oath and any statement recorded u/s. 133A has no evidentiary value and admission during such statement cannot be basis for making any addition to the Total Income relying on Decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son" [2012] 352 ITR 480 which affirmed the decision of Hon. Madras High Court reported as CIT vs. S. Khadar Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157 wherein it has been held as under:
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 459 - Full Document

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 22 September, 1971

There was a survey on the assessee company on 20.01.2014 wherein the CFO of the company, Shri Shyam Sunder Rathi was examined under oath and he admitted to the bogus accommodation entries taken from M/s. AMR Constructions Ltd., M/s. Gremach Infrastructure Equipment and Project Ltd. and M/s. ICSA (India) Ltd: When the CMD of the company, Shri Ajay Mittal was confronted with the statement given by Shri Shyam Sunder Rathi, he had also confirmed that the transactions were in the nature of accommodation entries, though he had retracted the statement subsequently. Further to the survey in March, 2014, Shri Navnit Choudhary, Director of the company had given the statement before the AO stating that these entries were in the nature of accommodation. Three people taking the same stand cannot be a coincidence. When a statement has been given it cannot be simply retracted without any concrete evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber& Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that "an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In this case, three persons have made the statements and only one has retracted. The statement of Shri Navnit Chaudhary given in March 2014, much after the survey has not been retracted till date and cannot be ignored. If the assessee is now stating that the statements given during the survey and subsequently are false, it is for them to prove that they are false. However, no such effort has been made by the assessee. Of course, the assessee is able to produce copy of the contract agreement, sales copies of the bills raised by the P a g e | 24 ITA No.3952/Mum/2015 & 971/Mum/2020, ITA No.7900/Mum/2019 ACIT, CC 6(4) Vs. M/s Arshiya Limited contractor and the bank account statement reflecting the payments. But this is not going to prove the genuineness of the transactions as all these things would be present even in accommodation entries. It is not just that they will be present but it Is a pre-requisite to put up the façade of genuineness. Therefore, these evidences filed by the assessee have no value. Further, it has been proved that M/s. Gannon Dunkerly& Co. Ltd. had obtained accommodation entries from M/s. AMR Constructions Ltd., M/s. ICSA (India) Ltd. and also M/s. Gremach Infra Equipments& Projects Ltd. This shows that the assessee is in the habit of taking accommodation entries. Similarly entries to jackup turnover were taken from M/s. Columbus Freight Carriers also. As the assessee's conduct is suspect due to the background of the entry providing companies and the history even the transactions with M/s. AMR Constructions cannot be taken on face value in the light of overwhelming evidence against the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is held that the assessee has not conclusively proved the genuineness of the transactions and therefore the addition of Rs.31,78,153/- is confirmed. This ground of appeal is DISMISSED."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 278 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 Next