Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.77 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995
Under these set of facts, the High
Court held that the findings given by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with and further held
that the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Oayal (supra) was
not applicable.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971
6. After hearing the rival submissions, going through the orders of authorities below and
paper book, we find that M/s Ankur International Ltd., although it is a quoted company, its
shares were not being transacted at Ludhiana Stock Exchange at, the relevant time. Shares
have been purchased and sold through the brokers and payments have been received in
cheque on different dates as per the statement of account of M/s S.K. Sharma & Co, Factual
matrix of the case from start of the purchase of shares at the rate of Rs. 3 to the sale of shares
at Rs. 55 in a short span of time and shares being not, quoted at Ludhiana Stock Exchange
and the way in which different, installment payments have been received from the brokers
and non- availability of the records of the brokers and the shares remaining in the name of
assessee even long after the sale of the shares does not stand the test of probabilities. As
rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative, these types of companies
function in the capital market whose sale price is manipulated to astronomical height only to
create the artificial transaction in the form of capital gain Surrounding circumstances differ
from the normal share market transactions in which they are ordinarily carried out. Taking all
the steps together, final conclusion does not accord with the human probabilities. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More held as under:
Section 131 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal on 29 April, 2009
i) The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad
Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Vimalchand Jain, Chennai vs Wto, Non Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai on 4 October, 2018
In a decision of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs Pr.CIT by their order
dated 10th April, 2017 have upheld the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench dated
18.07.2016 in ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs ITO, Ward-4(2), Nagpur,
wherein it was held that on the facts emergent in the case, and the preponderance of
probabilities, entire Capital Gains claims were to be treated as fictitious and bogus.