Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.38 seconds)Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
A.G.S. Tiber And Chemicals Industries ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 March, 1996
a)Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3(SC), wherein it was held
that when statements of witnesses are made basis of demand, not allowing assessee to cross-
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sunil Aggarwal on 2 November, 2015
15. The ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the following case laws, wherein it
was laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, that once primary onus has been discharged by the
assessee, onus shifts to the revenue to dislodge or prove otherwise:
Pcit vs M/S. Balaji Trade (P) Ltd on 31 July, 2018
a) PCIT vs. Andamine Construction P.Ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 45(SC)Held,
SLP filed against the decision of High Court was dismissed where High Court
confirmed Tribunal's order deleting addition made to assessee's income under section
68 on the ground that assessee had discharged initial burden cast upon it by providing
necessary details.
Commissioner Of Income Tax ( ... vs Seth Vinod Kumar Somani Charitable ... on 3 January, 2019
Later when the JV
project could not materialize , M/s. NCPL cancelled the JV and as such the money was
returned back to M/s. NCPL by the assessee and the mortgage was released. Additionally,
the assessee had furnished the copy of the JV, copy of the cancellation of JV, and in
addition the assessee produced documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness and
genuineness of the transaction with M/s. NCPL, M/s. NCPL's PAN is AACCN5258J and
that M/s. NCPL is a regular income tax assessee the ITR intimation is of AYs 2015-16,
2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 are seen at pages 266 to 269 of the paper book, the director
of M/s. NCPL has filed an affidavit sworn before the Judicial 1st class Magistrate wherein
he has admitted that M/s. NCPL provided Rs.17.46 cr. to set up manufacturing unit at
Silvasa along with the assessee and that the JV has been terminated and that the assessee
had refunded the full amount of Rs.17.46 cr. back to M/s. NCPL. These documents were
filed before the authorities below and the documents could not be controverted or its
veracity was assailed before us as not genuine documents, therefore, the addition made u/s.
68 of the Act only on the basis of two statements which could not stand the scrutiny of law,
was warranted and therefore, the addition cannot be sustained as per law. On similar facts,
the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Hitesh Somani, 221 Taxman 119 (Guj
HC)has held as under:
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Vijay Timber Industries Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs The Additional Commissioner Of Income ... on 30 July, 2019
33. We also note from the remand report that the AO was of the opinion that Shri
Sushil Kumar Bhatter's decision to lodge a FIR on 31-03-2016 was an afterthought when
the assessment order in respect of assessee was passed on 30-03-2016 u/s. 143(3) of the
Act. We note that assessee has filed the complaint dated 30/3/2016 before the Police
Station making the allegation stated therein which we have discussed, wherein Shri
Sushil Kumar Bhatter has made specific allegation, which has not been controverted by the
AO like he stated that he was only educated upto class II, and he was not conversant with
English language and he requested the AO to ask questions in Hindi or Bengali and that
even the statement which was recorded in English was not read over to him or translated
to him. Without even attempting to give some explanation on these allegations the AO has
merely made a remark that the action resorted to by the assessee of filing police complaint
and the sworn affidavit before judicial first class Magistrate was an afterthought, cannot be
countenanced and so the recorded statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatter by the AO
cannot be acted upon to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. Moreover, even
if the statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatter recorded by the AO is incriminating against
the assessee, then also this statement which is adverse against the assessee ought to have
been confronted with the assessee and the assessee given an opportunity to cross-examine,
which exercise the AO has not carried out to do, which makes the statement of Shri Sushil
Kumar Bhatter fragile and cannot be used against the assessee and for the various reasons
discussed it has to be discarded. For this proposition, we rely on the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's decision in Andaman Timbers (supra) and Odeon Builders (supra).