Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)
M/S Om Parkash Krishan Lal vs State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2010 cites

Girdhari Lal Nannelal vs The Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. on 1 March, 1976

The Tribunal relied upon this Court's decision in Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh (1977) 39 STC 30, wherein it was held that it was for the sales tax authorities to show the existence of material to indicate that the acquisition of money by the assessee had come from transactions liable to sales tax and not from other sources. The Tribunal found that the sales tax authorities in the present case had not established that the income disclosed by the assessee had been derived from business transactions liable to sales tax. The presumption of the assessing authority in this behalf was belied by the fact G.S.T.R. No. 4 of 2000 [ 6 ] that the income-tax authorities had accepted the sales turnover declared by the assessee."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 73 - H R Khanna - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs C. Velukutty on 2 December, 1965

But this judgment does not apply to the present case, since the income tax authorities seized the "Chetan Note Books" which revealed business transactions of the appellant-firm pertaining to business, both at Jagadari Head Office as well as Branch Office at Delhi. Further more, it has been noticed by the Assessing Authority at page 4 of the re-assessment order in the re-assessment proceedings that the appellant suffered a confessional statement admitting the suppression of sales before the income tax authorities. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on State of Kerala Vs. C.Velukutty 1966 Sales Tax Cases, Vol. XVII, page 465.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 170 - Full Document

B. Satyanarayana Murthy & Sons And Anr. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 August, 1983

This case is also not applicable due to the fact that the seized "Chetan Note Books" were not secret accounts but rather the appellant suffered a confessional statement as per the finding of the re-assessing authority. In fact, it is a settled law that he who seeks equity must do equity and in this case the assessee deliberately failed to produce the copies of account books despite availing several opportunities. Learned counsel also cited the judgment in Satyanarayana Murthy & Sons and another Vs. State of A.P. 57 STC 274.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976

The learned counsel for the State submitted a judgment in the case titled as "The Income-tax Officer, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta and others Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das" 1976(3) SCC 757, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "As stated earlier, the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there G.S.T.R. No. 4 of 2000 [ 13 ] has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is no doubt true that the court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. It was argued that the best judgment assessment was correctly arrived at and that the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for re-opening assessment. It was further argued that the seized "Chetan Note Books" were sufficient to form "definite information" for the purposes of re- assessment under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as has been raised in query No. (ii) of the reference for consideration and decision before this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 885 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Firm Jitanram Nirmalram vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 23 February, 1951

"... It is to be remembered that there is a distinction between receipt of definite information as a consequence of which a discovery is made and a notice is issued, and the final determination as to the liability or extent of liability for escaped assessment etc. We accept as correct the view expressed in Firm Jitanram Nirmalram v. CIT that the phase "definite information" cannot be construed in a universal sense and its meaning must depend on and vary with the G.S.T.R. No. 4 of 2000 [ 14 ] circumstances of each case. There is no doubt, however, that the information must be definite, that is, more than mere guess, gossip or rumour. There must also be a casual connexion between the information and the discovery; but "discovery" in the context of the section does not mean a conclusion of certainty at the stage of notice. What is necessary at that stage is that the Income Tax Officer should have formed an honest belief upon materials which reasonably support such belief..."
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 Next