Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.43 seconds)Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C.
Shukla (3 SCC 410) held that every transaction as recorded in the
regular books needs to be independently corroborated and proved when
some liability is to be fastened in respect of such transactions. The legal
principle as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is that independent
corroborative evidence is required in respect of entries in regular books
of accounts and the same would apply in the present case.
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018
The Hon'ble Court referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410) as well as another
decision in Common Cause vs. UOI (supra) while arriving at such a
conclusion.
The Finance Act, 2017
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sanjay Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal ... on 27 January, 2022
15. Proceeding further, it could also be seen that the impugned
additions have been made in the hands of the assessee merely on the
basis of vague entries found in the material seized from a third-party
premise. The said material was seized from the premises of a third-party
during the course of search conducted in the case of the said third-party.
The said material was neither seized from the premises of the assessee
nor was the same found to be in the handwriting of the assessee.
Therefore, such material, unless backed by corroborative evidence,
would not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference
against the assessee as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
CIT Vs Sant Lal [2020] 118 Taxmann.com 432 (Del). The Hon'ble
Court, in similar situation, held no addition could be made merely on the
basis of such entries. The ratio of the said decision was squarely
applicable to the case of the assessee as the Ld. AO has not referred to
any cogent material to corroborate the entries made in the material
seized from a third-party which are purportedly the transactions made by
the said third-party with the assessee.
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
18. Further, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse
burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of
establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on
revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an
almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore,
it was onus of Ld.AO to establish that the assessee was in receipt of
payments as noted in the seized material. This burden was not
discharged by revenue in the present case. Further, as per settled legal
precedents, no addition could be made unless there is corroborative
evidence to validate the entries found in the material seized from a third
party.
Vinit Kumar Bora, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 16 January, 2018
23. Another fact is that the material has been seized from a third-party
and the presumption of Sec.132(4A) r.w.s. 292C would arise qua the
searched person or qua the person who was found in the possession or
control of such documents. Such a presumption was not applicable to a
person other than the searched persons as held by Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Latha Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and
various other decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gaurangbhai Pramodchandra Upadhyay
(TCA No.98 of 2020) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Vinit
Ranawat vs ACIT (88 Taxmann.com 428).
Finance Act, 2015
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic ... on 6 November, 2019
24. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in its recent decision titled as
CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (159 Taxmann.com 179; 22.01.2024)
held that a sheet of paper containing typed entries and in loose form, not
shown to form part of the books of accounts regularly maintained by the
assessee or his business entities, do not constitute material evidence.