9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant case, as in the present case, the tax effect is to the extent of ₹ 34,01,999/- only. This Court is also aware of the fact that the scope of the said circular was considered by the Apex Court and in terms of the contents of such circular, it has been held that the same is having retrospective application i.e. in respect of the pending litigations as well. Standing Counsel seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal. - TAXC No. 93 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2019 - Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice And Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Judge For the Appellant : Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocate on behalf of Shri Amit Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent : None ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ₹ 1,04,86,158/-. 3. It is in the said circumstances that the above appeal has been filed, suggesting the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in law and on facts circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Department? 2. Whether in law and on facts circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 90,92,969/- made by the AO on account of unexplained excess stock of gold and silver unearthed as a result of search seizure action in the case of the assessee? 3. Whether in law and on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during search seizure action in the case of the assessee? 7. Whether in law and on facts circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A), while CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that as per section 106 of Evidence Act where any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him, thus when certain transactions are recorded by the assessee then primary onus of explaining the transactions lies on the assessee and not on the Revenue? 8. Whether in law and on facts circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A), while CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that as per the decision of Delhi High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
