Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

M/S Authorgen Technologies Pvt.Ltd, ... vs Pr.Cit-1, Chandigarh on 2 September, 2024

Authorgen Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Ito, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh on 2 September, 2024 आयकर

funds, the assessee do carry an obligation to issue the shares and where the shares are not issued, an obligation to repay the same ... that there is no legal basis for invocation of provisions of section 41(1) in respect of share application money which continues to remain outstanding

shares. Thus, a comparison of the fair market value of shares and the consideration received, both relating to the issue of shares is made ... market price relating to issue of shares is compared. If the trigger for the invocation of the section is in the year of receipt

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc-1, Chandigarh on 7 February, 2020 आयकर अपील

invocation of the said provision namely, that there should be a transaction of purchase and sale of any commodity including stocks and shares, which

unjustified. 2 2. That there was no reason to believe warranting invocation of the provisions of section ... upholding the addition of Rs.31,00.000/- made on account of share application money received by the assessee- company which is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified

making the above said addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- (being the share application money received by the Assessee) as income ... Ludhiana has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer that share application money of Rs. 42,00,000/- received by the assessee company

Ventures Pvt. Ltd. by the appellant company is without basis and the invocation of provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of Income ... left with M/s Macro Dairy Venture Pvt. Ltd after allotment of shares was given as advance to it along with further funds. This fact

investments were made as per the Board resolution and since the share holding was kept in demat account and the dividend has been received through ... which particular expenditure is relatable to the exempt income and therefore invocation of rule 8D was not justified. 12 The Ld. CIT(A) examining