Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 245I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
Ltd. (supra) These two decisions are highlighted by the assessee in its cross-objections to argue that merely because the assessee-company has filed its revised returns of income showing enhanced income would not prove that the assessee had enough commercial profits to declare dividend. We have considered the relevant facts in these two decisions of the Calcutta High Court, and found to be totally different from the facts of the present assessee's case. In these cases the assessees failed to establish the genuineness of the loans which were considered as undisclosed investment and added to their income. In the present assessee's case the issue of genuineness of the loans is not at all involved. The assessee has intentionally inflated the expenditure with a view to suppress the commercial profits and taxable income. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) himself mis-directed in applying the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid two cases because the ratio in those cases are not at all applicable to the assessee's case. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service (P.)
Section 116 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 245M in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chemical Agents (P.) Ltd. on 30 July, 1986
3. The assessee took up the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals), reiterating the arguments that it had earlier advanced, unsuccessfully, before the Assessing Officer. On an examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) found that the assessee filed its revised returns after survey operations were conducted, showing increased income only to avoid prolonged proceedings and litigation in the matter and to purchase peace. Referring to the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in the cases of CIT v. Chemical Agents (P.)