Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Haresh K. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-17(1)(5), Mumbai on 2 January, 2018 cites

Kp Sanghvi Infrastructure P.Ltd( ... vs Ito Wd 5(2)2, Mumbai on 15 December, 2016

The appellant has also not tried to prove whether there was any delivery challan, one-to-one correspondence of purchases and sales, whether there were proper stock in register entries, whether if the products were subject to 6 ITA No. 4975/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12) Haresh K. Sanghvi vs. ITO Octroi/EXCISE there were proper gate passes et cetera to prove the movement of goods; there is no contention in respect of delivery challans. Even in the case of N1KUNJ EXIMP which is relied upon by the assessee there was Ledger account confirmation from the parties concerned it was based on those Ledger account party CONFIRMATIONS and non-production of the alleged suppliers that it was held that mere nonproduction of the alleged suppliers cannot lead to a sustainable addition. But in the instant case there were not even CONFIRMATIONS which distinguishes and sets apart the addition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, 'G' Ward And Ors. vs Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. on 24 December, 1976

"Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to lax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose (hat income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Managnese Ore Co, ltd. v. ITO(1991) 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfillment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co, (P.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 189 - Full Document

N.K. Industries Ltd vs Dy.C.I.T. - Opponent(S) on 18 October, 2005

In these circumstances learned departmental representative has referred to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Apex Appeal No. 240 of 2003 in the case of N K Industries vs Dy CIT, order dated 20.06.2016, wherein hundred percent of the bogus purchases was held to be added in the hands of the assessee and tribunals restriction of the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases was set aside. It was expounded that when purchase bills have been found to be bogus 100% disallowance was required. The special leave petition against this order along with others has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 127 - Full Document
1