Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.30 seconds)Section 28 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gopal Vastralaya on 26 June, 1979
CIT v. Kashiram Mathura Prasad [1979] 119 ITR 497 (Pat), CIT v. Gopal Vastralaya [1980] 122 ITR 527 (Pat), CIT v. Binod Co. [1980] 122 ITR 832 (Pat) and CIT v. Chotanagpur Glass Works [1984] 145 ITR 225 (Pat), do not lay down the law correctly and I hereby overrule them on this point.
Commissioner Of Income Tax West Bengal vs Anwar Ali on 29 April, 1970
35. To conclude on this aspect, it must be held that the patent intent of the Legislature in amending Section 271(1)(c) and omitting the word "deliberately" therefrom and inserting the Explanation thereto by the Finance Act of 1964 was to bring about a change in the existing law. Consequently, the ratio of Anwar Ali's case, which had considered the earlier provisions of Section 28(1)(c) (1922 Act) is no longer attracted to the situation. The principal logical import of the Explanation is to shift the burden of proof from the Revenue on to the shoulders of the assessee in the class of cases where the returned income was less than 80 per cent. of the income assessed by the Department. In this category of cases, the Explanation raises three rebuttable presumptions against the assessee as spelt out in detail above in paragraph 14 (supra p. 302) of this judgment. The onus of proof for rebutting the presumptions lies squarely on the assessee. This burden, however, can be discharged (as in civil cases) by the preponderance of evidence. Equally it may not be inflexibly necessary to lead fresh evidence and it would be permissible in the penalty proceedings for the assessee to show and prove that on the existing material itself, the presumptions raised by the Explanation stand rebutted.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kashiram Mathura Prasad on 20 April, 1979
CIT v. Kashiram Mathura Prasad [1979] 119 ITR 497 (Pat), CIT v. Gopal Vastralaya [1980] 122 ITR 527 (Pat), CIT v. Binod Co. [1980] 122 ITR 832 (Pat) and CIT v. Chotanagpur Glass Works [1984] 145 ITR 225 (Pat), do not lay down the law correctly and I hereby overrule them on this point.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chotanagpur Glass Works on 16 March, 1983
CIT v. Kashiram Mathura Prasad [1979] 119 ITR 497 (Pat), CIT v. Gopal Vastralaya [1980] 122 ITR 527 (Pat), CIT v. Binod Co. [1980] 122 ITR 832 (Pat) and CIT v. Chotanagpur Glass Works [1984] 145 ITR 225 (Pat), do not lay down the law correctly and I hereby overrule them on this point.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chiranji Lal Shanti Swarup on 13 April, 1979
CIT v. Quality Sweet House [1981] 130 ITR 309, CIT v. Chiranji Lal Shanti Swarup [1981] 130 ITR 651 and Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 680.
Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 August, 1980
CIT v. Quality Sweet House [1981] 130 ITR 309, CIT v. Chiranji Lal Shanti Swarup [1981] 130 ITR 651 and Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 680.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs K.C. Behera And Ors. on 13 September, 1973
In the Orissa High Court, whilst adopting a view in consonance with the above, the Division Bench in CIT v. K. C. Behera [1976] 103 ITR 479,
expressly opined in the following words that Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), would no longer hold the field in the context of the amended provision (p. 486) :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rupabani Theatres P. Ltd. on 18 September, 1980
In a recent judgment in CIT v. Rupabani Theatres P. Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR 747, the Calcutta High Court has exhaustively considered this aspect and taking an identical view has observed as follows (at p. 765 of the report) :