Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.32 seconds)
Dcit, Jaipur vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur on 10 November, 2017 cites

C. Vasantlal And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 7 February, 1962

Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur 2.10 In light of above proposition in law and especially taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of C. Vasantlal & Co. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue and which actually supports the case of the assessee, in the instant case, the assessment was completed by the AO relying solely on the information received from the investigation wing, statement recorded u/s 132(4) of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and others, and various incriminating documentary evidence found from the search and seizure carried out by Investigation Wing, Mumbai on the Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group on 03.10.2013. It remains undisputed that the assessee was never provided copies of such incriminating documents and statements of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and various persons and an opportunity to cross examine such persons though he specifically asked for such documents and cross examination. On the other hand, the burden was sought to be shifted on the assessee by the A.O. It is clear case where the principle of natural justice stand violated and the additions made under section 68 therefore are unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby delete the same. The order of the ld CIT(A) is accordingly confirmed and the ground of the Revenue is dismissed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (Huf) vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 19 March, 2004

The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he must disclose all such material to the assessee and also allow the cross examination and if this is not done, the principles of natural justice stand violated.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 56 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Gargi Din Jwala Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 August, 1973

d) As regard to contention of ld AO that various incriminating documentary evidences were seized during the course of search on Bhanwar Lal Jain and statement of several persons were recorded which proves that the entry of the assessee is accommodation entry this is to submit that the ld AO has not provided the copy of so called incriminating document or statement to the assessee and opportunity of confrontation was not given to assessee. The assessee has specifically demanded to ld AO to provide the copy of so called incriminating documents and statements but the same was not given to assessee. It is necessary that a copy of the incriminating statement of the witness must be given to the assessee in order to enable him to have an effective and useful cross examination as held in State of Punjab Vs Bhagat Ram AIR 1974 SC 2335; Vaasanji Ghela & Co Vs CST (1977) STC 544,553 (Bom), Gargi Din Jwala Prasad Vs CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (ALL).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

M/S Chitrakala Investment Trade & ... vs Dcit, Udupi on 1 May, 2017

Reliance is placed on Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (1999) 236 ITR 671, 682. (Cal) In view of the above submission, we submit that the ld AO assessed the income of the assessee without providing the reasonable opportunity. The Assessing Officer is not absolved of the obligation to comply with the fundamental rules of justice, which have come to be known in administrative law as the principles of jurisprudence. Compliance with the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice is an indispensable requirement of a valid assessment order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Ors on 17 July, 1975

kindly see, Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of India v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. Vimladen Bhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); Mallappa Kallappa Ugare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Koyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 52 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Government Of India And Another vs Maxim A. Lobo And Another on 20 April, 1990

kindly see, Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of India v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. Vimladen Bhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); Mallappa Kallappa Ugare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Koyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker.).
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 14 - A S Anand - Full Document

State Bank Of Patiala vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 January, 1972

kindly see, Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of India v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. Vimladen Bhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); Mallappa Kallappa Ugare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Koyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker.).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Shaila Behari Lal Singha on 21 August, 1969

kindly see, Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of India v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. Vimladen Bhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); Mallappa Kallappa Ugare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Koyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 39 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next