Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
As per section 250(6) of the Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner
(Appeals) to state a point in dispute, record the reasons and pass a speaking
order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v.
Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 49% and Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy
(2005) SC 2090 has held that nonspeaking orders by Tribunal, as well as
Commissioner (Appeals), is violating the principle of natural justice and liable to be
set aside.
Smt. Srilekha Banerjee And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 27 March, 1963
CONVERSATION OF PROOF INTO NO PROOF BY THE CIT (A)
Respected sir, we fail to understand how the CIT (A) disbelieved the
explanation/statements given by the assessee when both documents are the
documents of CPC and converted good proof into no proof. Hon'ble Justice
Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT
[19631 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by
merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good "proof into no
proof".
Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 15 May, 1959
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Co Vs
CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion
are the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Anupam Kapoor on 1 February, 2007
Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179
5
ITA No. 87/Jodh/2023
M/s Khadi Grammodhyog Prathisthan
(P&H) also held that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal
proof.
State Of Maharashtra vs Narayan Vyankatesh Deshpande on 31 March, 1976
Supreme Court of India
State Of Maharashtra vs Narayan Vyankatesh Deshpande on 31 March, 1976
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1204, 1976 SCR (3) 980
8
ITA No. 87/Jodh/2023
M/s Khadi Grammodhyog Prathisthan
The State Governments should not adopt a litigious approach and waste
public revenues on fruitless and futile litigation where there are no chances of
success. It is unfortunately a fact that it costs quite a large sum of money to come
to this Court and this Court has become untouchable and unapproachable by
many litigants who cannot afford the large expense involved in fighting litigation in
this Court. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that State Governments, which
have public accountability in respect of their actions, should not lightly rush to this
Court to challenge a judgment of the High Court which is plainly and manifestly
correct and drag the opposite party in unnecessary expense, part of which would,
in any event, not be compensated by an award of cost. We accordingly dismiss
the appeal with costs. S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection ... on 14 December, 1973
11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both sides. In
our opinion the learned Commissioner of Income-tax has passed an
order which is based on the set of facts placed or understood by him.
Since, the appeal of the assessee has been disposed under the
faceless regim the contention that the officer should be made
responsible is not possible under this faceless regime, where the
personal contact is avoided and therefore, no prejudiced caused to the
assessee. The judgement based on the set of facts understood by the
ld. CIT(A) while discharging duty, action might have caused some
hardship to the assessee due to error of judgement but that in our
opinion does not warrant levy of cost on the Department. The hon'ble
15
ITA No. 87/Jodh/2023
M/s Khadi Grammodhyog Prathisthan
Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection
[1974] 93 ITR 505, while adjudicating relief claimed in respect of action
taken under section 132 of the Income-tax Act has observed as under