CIT (1941) 9 ITR 225 (Oudh). Lalmohan Krishnalal Paul v. CIT

22 ITR 241High Court1952#20001 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT (1941) 9 ITR 225 (Oudh). Lalmohan Krishnalal Paul v. CIT

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 34/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

…can be evidenced by the case law quoted by the ld. Assessing officer in his assessment order. The relevant extract from the assessment order is as follows: “The landmark judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar Vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241: “If a non-resident has a commission agent in India, who enters into transactions on its behalf, the non-resident would be regarded as having a business connection in India”” 15. We notice that when the ITAT has clearly given findings and set aside the matter for evaluation of DTAA provisions in the case and has further stated that the scope of S…

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 33/IND/2020[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

…can be evidenced by the case law quoted by the ld. Assessing officer in his assessment order. The relevant extract from the assessment order is as follows: “The landmark judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar Vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241: “If a non-resident has a commission agent in India, who enters into transactions on its behalf, the non-resident would be regarded as having a business connection in India”” 15. We notice that when the ITAT has clearly given findings and set aside the matter for evaluation of DTAA provisions in the case and has further stated that the scope of S…

DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. NIHAR EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…orities may rely under I.T. Act is not confined to direct testimony in the shape of statement made. Vide. Kanhailal Umrao Singh v/s. CIT (1941) 9 ITR 225 (Oudh). Lalmohan Krishnalal Paul vs. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal.), Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom). Thus. while making assessment. Assessing Officer has to see "material", "circumstances", "evidences" and "direct testimony" and thereafter reach to the conclusion for quantification of taxable income. 7.2 It is noteworthy that this case under appeal is not that plain as above referred to and relied upon cases are. Because during the course…

NIHAAR EQUIPMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1),

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3020/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…orities may rely under I.T. Act is not confined to direct testimony in the shape of statement made. Vide. Kanhailal Umrao Singh v/s. CIT (1941) 9 ITR 225 (Oudh). Lalmohan Krishnalal Paul vs. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal.), Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom). Thus. while making assessment. Assessing Officer has to see "material", "circumstances", "evidences" and "direct testimony" and thereafter reach to the conclusion for quantification of taxable income. 7.2 It is noteworthy that this case under appeal is not that plain as above referred to and relied upon cases are. Because during the course…

CIT (1941) 9 ITR 225 (Oudh). Lalmohan Krishnalal Paul v. CIT (22 ITR 241) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax