Income-tax Officer VS Suresh Kalmadi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CH.G.KRISHNAMURTHY
Income-tax Officer – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kalmadi – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
B.D. Mahadeshwar, Dr. V. Balasubramanian, A.P. Khakul,G.N. Joglekar

ORDER

Ch. G.krishnamurthy, President - This is a case heard by Pune Bench but on account of difference of opinion between the learned Brothers, the matter has been referred to the President under section 255 (4) of the Income-tax Act to nominate a third Member for his opinion. I am nominated as the third Member. The point of difference of opinion is :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the material on record is sufficient to warrant acceptance of the claim of borrowing from:

(1)	Super Sales Syndicate	(Rs. 50,000)
(2)	-do-	(Rs. 50,000)
(3)	M.K. Enterprises	(Rs. 40,000)
(4)	Ambika Trading Co.	(Rs. 50,000)
(5)	Sterling Chem. Pharma	(Rs. 50,000)

2.I have heard at great length the learned counsel for the Department Dr. V. Balasubramanian and Shri G.N. Joglekar, the learned counsel for the assessee, perused the documents placed before me, the orders passed by the ITO, the Commissioner (Appeals) and my learned Brothers, and considered the points of view addressed to me as well as the case law relied upon.

3.The short dispute is, like in any other case, of cash credits where the explanation is that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

CH.G.KRISHNAMURTHYIncome-tax Officer – AppellantVersusSuresh Kalmadi – Respondent

CH.G.KRISHNAMURTHY
Income-tax Officer – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kalmadi – Respondent