Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jayantilal Tribhovandas. on 31 August, 1995 cites

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning ... on 18 April, 1995

In Asstt. CIT vs. Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, it has been held by this Tribunal that mere admission of a partner who happens to be a partner of other firms also as regards the transactions mentioned in the diary seized during the course of search of his premises, cannot bind the assessee-firm and binds the partner individually and no addition can be made in the hands of the firm on the basis of such admission. In the case before us the search was admittedly at the residence of one of the partners, viz., Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas and during the course of search statement of the son of the partner, viz., Shri Jayantilal was recorded which cannot bind the assessee firm though it may bind the son of the partner. In view of the above, we agree with the learned CIT(A) that the assessees case is covered under the answer to question No. 7 of the CBDT Circular No. 451, dt. 17th Feb., 1986 reproduced at page 2 above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 4 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

Jaikishan Gopikishan And Sons And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 22 February, 1989

7. The next grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the ITO to modify/waive the interest under s. 215 in the light of the Boards circular in this behalf. This ground is consequential in nature. Since the CIT(A) has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme, 1985, and we have confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard, the order of charging of interest under s. 215 is liable to be modified/waived in the light of Boards circular in this behalf. Needless to say that the Boards circulars are binding on the IT authorities in view of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jaikishan Gopikishan & Sons (supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Anand Kumar Saraf And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 29 July, 1993

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. By any standard, it cannot be said that the search and seizure operation was carried out at the business premises of the assessee-firm. It is an admitted fact that there was no search warrant against the assessee-firm and out of four partners who constituted the firm, only two were raided. From the residence of one of the partners, viz., Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas some loose papers were found which had some vague notings in the handwriting of the son Shri Jayantilal of the said partner (not the partner of the said firm) whose (sons) statement was recorded and in his statement his son admitted that the loose papers were written by him. Thereafter, no investigation/inquiry was conducted till 31st March, 1987, when the assessee-firm filed the revised returns under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985, which was in operation. It is significant to note that no investigation/inquiry was conducted in the intervening period of about three years either in the case of the partner at whose residence search was conducted nor in the case of the firm and accordingly it is held that the revised returns were not prompted by the investigation that was going on. As will be apparent from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Kumar Saraf (supra) relied upon by both the parties before us, the Honble High Court has clearly held that merely seizure of papers cannot mean detection and that when detection has not taken place, if the assessee were to come forward with a disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme, he is very well eligible for all the benefits as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme. The Honble High Court further observed at page 574 as under :
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ilaxi Textiles Industries on 19 October, 1993

In the case before us, as is evident from the facts discussed hereinabove, the search was conducted at the residential premises of one of the partners during the course of which a vague statement of his son was recorded; no inquiry whatsoever had been made after the search by the Revenue during the course of intervening period of about three years. As such the Revenue cannot draw support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ilaxi Textiles Industries (supra). In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Scheme of 1985 and accordingly confirm the findings of the CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

K.S. Ramchandran vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 19 January, 1965

Coming to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ramchandran & Co. (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, we find that the facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before us. In the case before the Kerala High Court, the return of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1984-85 was due on 31st July, 1984, but the petitioner sought for extension of time till 31st March, 1985, and filed the return one year later on 31st March, 1986, disclosing a total income of Rs. 4,43,370. The ITO started investigation on receipt of the return and called for various details and particulars from the petitioner by letter dt. 1st Dec., 1986. While the proceedings were thus going on the petitioner purported to take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme of 1985, and filed a revised return on 12th March, 1987, disclosing a total income of Rs. 8,39,810 for the year. The ITO, however, was not satisfied with this return as he was of the opinion that the petitioner had disclosed a lesser value for the arrack sold by it during this year than in the previous year, and for other reasons. He made an addition to the total income returned, besides disallowing certain items of expenditure claimed. On the basis of the above facts, the Honble Kerala High Court held that the revised return was evidently prompted by the investigation that was going on and was made almost on the eve of completion of the assessment, namely, on 12th March, 1987, the date of assessment being 1st April, 1987. The Honble High Court accordingly held that the return so filed was neither true nor complete and hence the petitioner became disentitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme, 1985.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1