CIT v. Anwer Ali

76 ITR 697Supreme Court of India1970#21361 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Anwer Ali

DCIT, Circle - 16(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Maheshwari Mega Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1352/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)

…13 I.T.A. No. 1352/Hyd/14 Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd., Hyd. confirmed all the additions contested by the assessee. AO has discussed elaborately in the penalty order to justify the levy of penalty. He relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Anwer Ali 76 ITR 697 (SC). He brought to our notice the para 4.10.1 and para 9.3 of CIT(A) order to submit that CIT(A) has ignored that assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars and came to wrong conclusion. Further, he relied on the findings of Hon’ble ITAT on these additions (page 40 of paper book). 18. Ld. AR submitted that revenue department has raised only e…

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6365/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 131Section 68

…eracity of the repudiation. 17. For a complete understanding of the concept of `burden of proof attention should be drawn to decisions delivered in the context of penalty proceeding under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.CIT, West Bengal v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 697 was decided by the Apex Court holding that, if there is no evidence on record except the explanation of the assessed, which explanation has been found to be false, it still does not follow that the receipt constitutes taxable income. This decision was followed by the Apex Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, A.P…

ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Harshwardhan Gems P. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1337/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…eracity of the repudiation. 17. For a complete understanding of the concept of `burden of proof attention should be drawn to decisions delivered in the context of penalty proceeding under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.CIT, West Bengal v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 697 was decided by the Apex Court holding that, if there is no evidence on record except the explanation of the assessed, which explanation has been found to be false, it still does not follow that the receipt constitutes taxable income. This decision was followed by the Apex Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P.…

Harshwardhan Gems Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1070/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…eracity of the repudiation. 17. For a complete understanding of the concept of `burden of proof attention should be drawn to decisions delivered in the context of penalty proceeding under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.CIT, West Bengal v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 697 was decided by the Apex Court holding that, if there is no evidence on record except the explanation of the assessed, which explanation has been found to be false, it still does not follow that the receipt constitutes taxable income. This decision was followed by the Apex Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P.…

CIT v. Anwer Ali (76 ITR 697) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax