Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.36 seconds)Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Coinage Act, 2011
Dlf Commercial Enterprises, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi on 16 February, 2021
6.2 After perusing the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as the
ITAT, Delhi, we are of the considered view that facts and circumstances of the present
case are similar to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Tribunal,
hence, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions.
6.3 Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
status of the family and on the anvil of the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the
case of Ashok Chaddha (Supra) & of Sushila Devi (supra) and the ITAT Delhi decision
in the case of Suneela Soni (supro), the explanation given by the assessee's counsel is
accepted. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are cancelled and addition
made by the AO and partly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of balance jewellery
weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained is hereby deleted.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs Klassic Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,, on 29 August, 2019
Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain, [2010] 339 ITR 351
(Gujarat)
CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP)
Smt. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT, 90 TTJ 974 (Jab)
Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxmann 170 (Mum)
CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani, 101 ITD 337 (Jodh)
Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha vs. Asst.
Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956
P a g e |9
ITA No.2085/Del/2025
Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14)
5.15. In this regard, it is submitted that it is settled law that if a sworn
affidavit is presented during the proceedings where no investigation has been
made in respect of the contents of the affidavit nor any information has come
to light that may be inconsistent with the affidavit. The Ld. AO has to accept
the affidavit as is and cannot state that the affidavit is not accurate or
misleading. Reliance is placed on Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. Commissioner
of Income-tax [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC).