Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)
Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 28 February, 2019 cites

Kamal Kumar Saharia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 February, 1994

It cannot be permitted to treat a part or the whole of the consideration as dividend and to assess the same as such and also to say that this will not have the effect of reducing the amount of consideration for (P) Ltd., (1993) 202 ITR 932, 941, 938 (Bom)] So much so, it is settled law that the tax authorities having relied on one part of a transaction cannot reject the other part of the same transaction [Kama/ Kumar Saharia v CIT, (1995) 216 ITR 217, 221 (Gauh)] The assessee having taken the benefit of a particular decision or direction cannot contend against such decision or direction.
Gauhati High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 33 - S N Phukan - Full Document

Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 August, 1977

); Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas v CIT, (1978) Tax LR (NOC) 91 (Guj) (1977) CTR (Guj) 647; Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. V Union of India, (1979) Tax LR (NOC) 134 (Del); C.V. Ramana v CIT, (1990) 181 ITR 248, 256 (AP)] Once the Assessing Officer assesses a particular receipt under a particular head of income, that amount is no more available to him for assessment under another head. The Revenue cannot approbate and reprobate.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 67 - Full Document

C.V. Ramana vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 August, 1988

); Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas v CIT, (1978) Tax LR (NOC) 91 (Guj) (1977) CTR (Guj) 647; Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. V Union of India, (1979) Tax LR (NOC) 134 (Del); C.V. Ramana v CIT, (1990) 181 ITR 248, 256 (AP)] Once the Assessing Officer assesses a particular receipt under a particular head of income, that amount is no more available to him for assessment under another head. The Revenue cannot approbate and reprobate.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Upper India Publishing House (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lucknow on 4 December, 1978

This is so because the assessee cannot approbate or reprobate at the same time [Hope (India) Ltd v CIT, (1993) 203 ITR 118, 123 (Cat)] Thus, the respondent having prevented the appellants from getting a declaration that the entire gift deed was invalid in lieu of which they gave up, because of the compromise, their claim for the property in dispute cannot be permitted to turn round now and take the stand; 'Heads I win, tails you lose'. Law has to promote justice. The Courts of equity and justice cannot Stay Application No.02/Lkw/2019 (in I.T.A. No.400/Lkw/2018 9 Assessment Year:2015-16 uphold such an unfair stand. The respondent cannot be permitted to reprobate to his advantage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 13 February, 2004

All these facts taken together, demonstrate that the assessee was indeed engaged in the business of Hawala and rather this fact has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in para 2 of his order where he has held that assessee was found to be engaged in the business of Hawala. Therefore, the addition sustained by learned CIT(A) by holding the entire income being Stay Application No.02/Lkw/2019 (in I.T.A. No.400/Lkw/2018 11 Assessment Year:2015-16 assessee's unexplained income u/s 68, is not justified as the money did not belong to the assessee. Moreover, we find that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account and no books of account were found during the survey/search and only diary was found and therefore, also the addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act as no amount was found credited in the books of account. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer should recalculate the unaccounted income of the assessee by taking peak credit by considering both debit and credit entries in the diary. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fertilizer Traders [2014] 42 Taxmann.com 476 (Allahabad) has held that under such circumstances each credit and debit entry appearing has to be arranged chronologically and data-wise and only addition should be made of the peak amount. The finding of Hon'ble court, as contained from para 5 onwards, are reproduced below:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 82 - Cited by 84 - Full Document
1   2 Next