Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Acit, New Delhi vs Shri Devender Kumar Gupta, Delhi on 17 October, 2017 cites

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. on 14 January, 2011

7. We have considered the rival contentions. It is well settled law that additional evidences could be admitted when the same are relevant and required to be looked into. In respect of this proposition, we rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tekram 262 CTR 118 and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., 351 ITR 57 did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal who has admitted the additional evidence because the assessee could not produce these records before the lower authorities due to non- retrievability of email on the date because of technological defects. The Tribunal looked into the entire matter and arrived at a conclusion that additional evidence was necessary for deciding the issue on hand. The Hon'ble High Court also observed in its Judgment that "It is well settled that the procedure is hand-mate of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at appropriate stage. Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by 12 ITA.No.5978 & 5760/Del./2014 Shri Devender Kumar Gupta, Delhi.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 81 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Virgin Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. on 18 February, 2011

7.1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Securiteis and Credits P. Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del.) held that the additional evidence was crucial to the disposal of the appeal and had direct bearing on the quantum of the claim made by the assessee, Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, permits the CIT(A) to admit additional evidence if he finds that the same is crucial for disposal of the appeal. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decisions, it is clear that the A.O. did not allow the benefit of cost of acquisition of the property while computing the long term capital gains because the documents of purchase have not been produced before A.O. The assessee specifically submitted in the application under Rule 46A that A.O. asked the assessee on 19th December, 2011 to furnish the purchase documents of the relevant property. Since these documents could not be collected, therefore, the same could not be filed before A.O. The A.O. passed the order on 30th December, 2011 and as such 13 ITA.No.5978 & 5760/Del./2014 Shri Devender Kumar Gupta, Delhi.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 216 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1