Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (3.49 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 158BC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shailesh S. Shah on 11 March, 1997
A similar view was taken by the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra) and in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Shailesh S. Shah (supra).
Pushkar Narain Sarraf vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 January, 1990
3.5. The basis of addition by the Revenue is entirely rests on the presumption of recovery of p. 13, Annexure A-1, and the presumption contained under s. 132(4A) of the IT Act. In this connection, we would like to mention here that presumption arising out of sub-s. (4A) of s. 132 of the Act is available to the Revenue for the limited purpose of search and seizure and the proceedings under s. 132(5) and 132(11). Such presumptions are available for the limited purpose of estimating the undisclosed income and the estimated tax liability for the purpose of deciding whether the seized assets should be seized or retained. The presumption cannot have the effect of excluding or overriding the provisions of s. 69 of the IT Act during the course of regular assessment proceedings. This view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Raj Pal Singh Ram Autar vs. ITO (supra), which in turn has based on its order on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushkar Narain Saraf vs. CIT (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court laid down the following principles :
Income-Tax Officer vs W.D. Estate (P.) Ltd. on 3 November, 1992
It is further submitted that uncorroborative entries in the books of accounts or documents do not establish their truthfulness and in this connection he laid emphasis on the contents of the document or book of account and truthfulness of the contents. It is emphasised that jotting in diary is held neither a book nor a document. Therefore, addition cannot be justified merely on the basis of seized papers. With reference to the decision of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. W. D. Estates (P) Ltd. (supra) it was submitted that no addition could be made merely on the basis of a notorious fact that on-money is involved in property deals, particularly when the AO has not made any such allegation in the present case and no evidence was found during the course of search that any transaction entered into by the assessee is not disclosed by him.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Biju Patnaik on 9 May, 1986
In reply the learned assessee's counsel submitted that the decision in the case of CIT vs. Biju Patnaik (supra) is distinguishable on facts as in that case no material was produced regarding the persons who entered into the trust or they had capacity to donate. On the contrary in the present case necessary evidence was produced. The same remained totally unrebutted. It was submitted that no addition can be made on the basis of presumption and assumptions.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jaiswal Motor Finance on 24 February, 1983
(f) CIT vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance (1983) 141 ITR 706 (All);