Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.97 seconds)K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam on 30 November, 2000
In K. Ravindranathan Nair v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2001
(247) ITR 178, a three-Judge Bench of this Court opined :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. on 8 October, 1998
17. The explanation having regard to the decision of this Court must be
preceded by a finding as to how and as to in what manner he furnished the
particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said
purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf.
[See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.,
246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246
ITR 571].
Diwan Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 November, 1998
17. The explanation having regard to the decision of this Court must be
preceded by a finding as to how and as to in what manner he furnished the
particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said
purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf.
[See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.,
246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246
ITR 571].
P.N. Krishna Lal And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Govt. Of Kerala And Anr. Etc. Etc on 17 November, 1994
19. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the more is the stringent
law, more strict construction thereof would be necessary. Even when the
burden is required to be discharged by an assessee, it would not be as heavy
as the prosecution. [See P.N. Krishna Lal and Others v. Govt. of Kerala and
Another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187]
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Jeevan Lal Sah on 16 September, 1993
23. We may notice that in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jeevan Lal
Sah 1994 (205) ITR 244, this Court dealt with the amendment of Section
271(1)(C) made in the year 1964 to hold :
K.C. Builders & Anr vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 28 January, 2004
24. The question came for consideration of this Court yet again in K.C.
Builders and Anr v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax 2004 (265)
ITR 562 = (2004) 5 SCC 731), wherein it was held :
M/S Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-I on 6 February, 2007
25. The said principle has been reiterated in M/s Virtual Soft Systems
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 2007 (2) SCALE 612, where
it was held :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001
In Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore v. Suresh Chandra Mital
(2003) 11 SCC 729, whereupon Mr. Datta, learned Additional Solicitor
General relied, no reason was assigned and only the order of the High Court
was not interfered with. Therein, it appears, the assessee pleaded that he had
submitted the revised return of income which was not found to be sufficient.
M. Janardhana Rao vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 January, 2005
In M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2005) 2 SCC 324, whereupon again reliance was placed by Mr. Datta, this
Court was concerned with the meaning of the substantial question of law as
obtaining in Section 271A of the Income Tax Act. We are not concerned
with the said question in the present case.