CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal

158 ITR 826High Court1986#3452 most cited

What is CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal authority for?

A judicial authority can accept an assessee's statement when it is the only piece of evidence available.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Krishnaveni Ammal · 158 ITR 826 · section 69 · unexplained income · premium money · purchase agreement · assessment · additional income · judicial authority · assessee statement · only evidence

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)right to receivesection 10(34)disallowance of interest expenditureinterest under section 234asection 57interest u/s 234areopening of assessmentsection 234bsection 234asection 69csection 234

Judgments citing CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 205/BANG/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 153ASection 153C

…uments produced before them and they are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances. 6. With the above observation the AO completed assessment, the AO relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna Veni Amma (1986) 158 ITR 826 and the premium money noted of Rs.3,48,33,582/- was treated as additional income received at the time of entering into purchase agreement in respect of 20 shops at Madiwala Commercial Plaza during the Assessment Year 2006-07 and the said premium was added as unexplained income for this AY in terms of section 69 of the Act and added into the tota…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

ITA 45/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Respondent: Shri. Chandrasekhar, AR
Section 153ASection 153C

…ments produced before them and they are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances. 6. With the above observation the AO completed assessment, the AO relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna Veni Amma (1986) 158 ITR 826 and the premium money noted of Rs.3,48,33,582/- was treated as additional income received at the time of entering into purchase agreement in respect of 20 shops at Madiwala Commercial Plaza during the Assessment Year 2006-07 and the said premium was added as unexplained income for this AY in terms of section 69 of the Act and added into the tota…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI vs. MR RASHMIN GIRDHARILAL RUGHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

ITA 2143/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

…bserved Bombay Bench H' Mumbai in ITA No. 533/Mum/2005 observed that one that one-sided statement made by some interested witnesses sided statement made by some interested witnesses were self were self-serving." 14.1. In the case of CIT vs Krishnaveni, Ammal, 158 ITR 826, the 14.1. In the case of CIT vs Krishnaveni, Ammal, 158 ITR 826, the 14.1. In the case of CIT vs Krishnaveni, Ammal, 158 ITR 826, the Hon'ble Madras High Court Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under:- 'It might be that any judicial authority can accept any statement 'It might be that any judicial authority can accept any statement 'It might be…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI vs. MR RASHMIN GIRDHARILAL RUGHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

ITA 2142/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

…bserved Bombay Bench H' Mumbai in ITA No. 533/Mum/2005 observed that one that one-sided statement made by some interested witnesses sided statement made by some interested witnesses were self were self-serving." 14.1. In the case of CIT vs Krishnaveni, Ammal, 158 ITR 826, the 14.1. In the case of CIT vs Krishnaveni, Ammal, 158 ITR 826, the 14.1. In the case of CIT vs Krishnaveni, Ammal, 158 ITR 826, the Hon'ble Madras High Court Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under:- 'It might be that any judicial authority can accept any statement 'It might be that any judicial authority can accept any statement 'It might be…

ASHWIN S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2735/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

…ence has been disclosed by the revenue and adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee, if he fails to put before the department material which was in his exclusive possession." 6.6 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Krishnavani Ammal 158 ITR 826 held that "as a matter of fact the Law of Evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced it." From the above, it is clear that the burden of proving that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is genuine and for the purpose of business…

ASHWIN S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

…ence has been disclosed by the revenue and adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee, if he fails to put before the department material which was in his exclusive possession." 6.6 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Krishnavani Ammal 158 ITR 826 held that "as a matter of fact the Law of Evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced it." From the above, it is clear that the burden of proving that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is genuine and for the purpose of business…

ASHWIN S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 422/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

…ence has been disclosed by the revenue and adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee, if he fails to put before the department material which was in his exclusive possession." 6.6 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Krishnavani Ammal 158 ITR 826 held that "as a matter of fact the Law of Evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced it." From the above, it is clear that the burden of proving that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is genuine and for the purpose of business…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. KEMTANI & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…s, and has no explanation in the matter. A failure to adduce evidence would, on the contrary, raise the presumption as to adverse inference, as is settled law (refer: Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal [1986] 158 ITR 826 (Mad)). The law in the matter is well-settled, with there being instances galore of the higher courts drawing an adverse inference in the absence of the requisite evidence being led by the person raising the claim. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of UP [1979] 118 ITR 277 (SC), for example, the Revenue raising a claim before the H…

M/S KEMTANI & ASSOCIATES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 71/JAB/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…s, and has no explanation in the matter. A failure to adduce evidence would, on the contrary, raise the presumption as to adverse inference, as is settled law (refer: Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal [1986] 158 ITR 826 (Mad)). The law in the matter is well-settled, with there being instances galore of the higher courts drawing an adverse inference in the absence of the requisite evidence being led by the person raising the claim. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of UP [1979] 118 ITR 277 (SC), for example, the Revenue raising a claim before the H…

TARPAWANKUMAR RAMPRASAD SANDHIR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1858/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…or General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449(Delhi): wherein it has been held that since the assessee in spite of several opportunities did not produce the relevant documents, an inference in terms of section 114 of the Evidence Act. (b) CIT v Krishnaveni Ammal (1986) 158 ITR 826,829,830 (Mad.) wherein it has been stated that the law of evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the court an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced it. Tarpawankumar Ramprasad Sandhir Vs. ITO AY : 2016-17 4 (c) Jayshree Roy Chowdhary Vs. DCIT - 92 ITD 400 (Kol.) In view of the…

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 331/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f Ram Prasad Varma Vs. CIT[1979] (2 Taxman 469 (AIL)) b. Decision of ITAT Agra Bench in the case of Shivangi Steel P Ltd. Vs. ACIT Central Circle [2014] (42 taxmann.com 393). c. Decision of High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal [1986] (158 ITR 826). d. Decision of ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Kanniappan Murugadoss Vs. ITO Non Corporate ward 7(4), Chennai [2017] (79 taxmann.com 244). e. Decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of A K Babu Khan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax [1976] (102 ITR 757). 8.1 The ld. DR also filed compilation of case laws containing pages 1 to 222,…

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 330/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f Ram Prasad Varma Vs. CIT[1979] (2 Taxman 469 (AIL)) b. Decision of ITAT Agra Bench in the case of Shivangi Steel P Ltd. Vs. ACIT Central Circle [2014] (42 taxmann.com 393). c. Decision of High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal [1986] (158 ITR 826). d. Decision of ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Kanniappan Murugadoss Vs. ITO Non Corporate ward 7(4), Chennai [2017] (79 taxmann.com 244). e. Decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of A K Babu Khan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax [1976] (102 ITR 757). 8.1 The ld. DR also filed compilation of case laws containing pages 1 to 222,…

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…g the facts merely mentioned that M/s Deepak Security is registered with SEBI and others that only proves the identity and not the nature of transaction as has been pointed out by the A.O. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad) has held that the law of evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn against the persons who ought to have produced it. In that case, there were 80 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari crossed cheques but they were not produced. Similarly, in the cas…

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…g the facts merely mentioned that M/s Deepak Security is registered with SEBI and others that only proves the identity and not the nature of transaction as has been pointed out by the A.O. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad) has held that the law of evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn against the persons who ought to have produced it. In that case, there were 80 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari crossed cheques but they were not produced. Similarly, in the cas…

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…g the facts merely mentioned that M/s Deepak Security is registered with SEBI and others that only proves the identity and not the nature of transaction as has been pointed out by the A.O. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad) has held that the law of evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn against the persons who ought to have produced it. In that case, there were 80 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari crossed cheques but they were not produced. Similarly, in the cas…

M/S. HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4957/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4957/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 बनाम M/S Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit D-22, Defence Colony, Vs. Central Circle-14, New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ment is bad in law. He has submitted that since no satisfaction has been produced on record, therefore, adverse inference may be drawn against the Revenue Department and relied upon judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826. 5. Ld. DR produced the assessment record which contained the same copy of Performa obtaining approval u/s 151, copy of which is filed at page 160 to 162 of the PB and Ld. DR submitted that there is no signature on the same of CIT (Central)-II. Ld. DR, however, referred to PB 159 which is letter of ITO (Hqrs.) dated 21.03.2013 in which the ITO…

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 715/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…liance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also o…

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 713/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…liance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also o…

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 712/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…liance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also o…

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 707/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…liance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also o…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal (158 ITR 826) — Cited in 34 Judgments | BharatTax