Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.31 seconds)Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Finance Act, 2019
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Biocon Limited on 8 October, 2021
42.1. Since the issue in the present case is covered
against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Biocon Ltd (supra), therefore,
the ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Section 292C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C. Vasantlal And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 7 February, 1962
"2.6.13 Before choosing to place reliance the Supreme Court
decision in the case of Sumati Dayal and the case of Durga
Prasad More the Assessing Officer notes the seized material in
situ has to be seen as circumstantial evidence. This stand has to
be upheld since it is in the very nature of such transactions that
there would be no direct evidence. That the scope of evidence
under the Income-tax Act is wider than what is understood under
the Evidence Act is well known. Evidence under the Income-tax
Act can go beyond direct evidence to include material gathered by
the Assessing Officer in an enquiry or material which is within his
personal knowledge or such other material that may come into his
possession subject only to the fetters placed by the principles of
natural justice. The Supreme Court decision in the case of C.
Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court
in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju &
Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this
point.