Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 54 (0.30 seconds)
Acit,, Chandigarh vs Sh. K.K. Jerath, Chandigarh on 8 July, 2021 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-Ii vs Ravi Kant Jain on 15 March, 2001

• ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. A.R. ENTERPRISES 350 ITR 0489 (SC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED 367 ITR 466 (SC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PINAKI MISHRA 98 CCH 0208 (DEL HC) • ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. vs. HOTEL BLUE MOON 321 ITR 0362 (SC) • N.R. PAPER & BOARD LTD. & ORS. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 234 ITR 0733 (GUJ HC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAVI KANT JAIN 250 ITR 0141 (DEL HC) • DR. GAUTAM SEN vs CHIEF CIT 74 TAXMANN.com 128 (BOM HC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DR. RATAN KUMAR SINGH 357 ITR 0035 (ALL HC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R.M.L. MEHROTRA 320 ITR 0403 (ALL HC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JUPITER BUILDERS (P) LTD. 287 ITR 0287 (DEL HC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHAL AGGARWAL 283 ITR 0326 (DEL HC) • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNIL AGGARWAL 379 ITR 0367 (DEL HC) • T. JAYABHARATHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 46 CCH 0120 (Chennai TRIB) • MANI AND MONEY LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 26 ITR (Trib) 0009 (Chennai TribJ • MAHESH BHATT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 87 TTJ 0734 (Mum Bench) • SUNDER AGENCIES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX59 TTJ 0610 (Mum Bench)
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 115 - Full Document

K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981

Even the HUD A has issued re-allotment letter in the name of Sh. Bal Krishan Khanna and Sh. Kapil Jerath on the basis of the agreement to sell and other relevant documents. Evidence of the same is enclosed. The plot in question is an industrial plot. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese Vs. ITO Ernakulam & Others reported in 131 ITR 597, has held that the assessee must be shown to have received more than what is declared or discussed by him as consideration. The difference between the market value and the consideration receipt is not sufficient. As far as the burden of proof is concerned the same is on the department. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its wisdom ha held that the value for purpose of the Income Tax Act would not be the value for stamp duty but as per the actual agreement to sell".
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 3460 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Mittal vs Income-Tax Officer And Others. on 11 March, 1991

A statement of sellers of the property that he received consideration more than that what was declared in the Registered Deed is not tenable in view of the provisions of section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provide that no oral evidence is admissible to counter a legally executed registered document has further averred that statement of the sellers of the property were obtained at the back of the assessee. The assessee was never given an opportunity to cross-examine them and as such the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless evidence of a person is tested on the touchstone of cross-examination the same is not admissible, was ignored. In view of the clear proposition of law the statements obtained by the Income Tax Department under coercion regarding receipt of a higher amount from the sellers of the property who were signatory to the Registered Sale Deed and had received the consideration amount in the presence of a Sub-Registrar are not tenable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 49 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next