Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Ito, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata , Kolkata vs Sri Vikash Jhawar, Kolkata on 19 February, 2020 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971

4. Next comes the Revenue's latter plea(s) that the tribunal has not distinguished the factum of the issue(s) involved i.e. long/short-term capital gains/losses based on entry operators' collusion with assessees. I find no force in these arguments as well since the learned lower authorities have followed the very reasoning without quoting any specific material against these assessees. And also that the lower authorities had gone by identical reasoning of circumstantial evidence as per case law Sumati dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801(SC) and CIT v. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540(SC) and not actual evidence. This tribunal has held, in nutshell, that such a course of action of treating all categories of gains or losses; as the case may be, must be based as actual evidence only. The same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis in all these cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Naresh Khattar (Huf) on 28 January, 2003

5.1 With the consent of both the learned representatives, I now proceed to adjudicate the assessee's main appeal ITA No.2067/Kol/2018 wherein its sole substantive grievance is that the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the above-stated section 69B unexplained investment addition in the nature of cost of construction stated in the books of Rs.4,76,232/- and that approved by the approved valuer of the Bank at Rs.10,33,000/- thereby involving differential sum of Rs.5,56,768/-. Suffice to say, hon'ble Delhi high court's decision in CIT vs. Naresh Khattar(HUF) [2003] 262 ITR 664(Delhi) and Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 553(Guj) make it clear that such an addition has to be based on the corresponding investments recorded in books and not otherwise. I go by the very analogy and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. This assessee's main appeal ITA No.2067/Kol/2018 is accepted therefore.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 53 - D K Jain - Full Document

Ushakant N. Patel vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 December, 2005

5.1 With the consent of both the learned representatives, I now proceed to adjudicate the assessee's main appeal ITA No.2067/Kol/2018 wherein its sole substantive grievance is that the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the above-stated section 69B unexplained investment addition in the nature of cost of construction stated in the books of Rs.4,76,232/- and that approved by the approved valuer of the Bank at Rs.10,33,000/- thereby involving differential sum of Rs.5,56,768/-. Suffice to say, hon'ble Delhi high court's decision in CIT vs. Naresh Khattar(HUF) [2003] 262 ITR 664(Delhi) and Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 553(Guj) make it clear that such an addition has to be based on the corresponding investments recorded in books and not otherwise. I go by the very analogy and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. This assessee's main appeal ITA No.2067/Kol/2018 is accepted therefore.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1