Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (2.46 seconds)
Documents citing Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation ... on 8 February, 2019

Ito, New Delhi vs Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,, New ... on 9 May, 2019

8. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that notice under section 143(2) was to be generated on the address selected by the assessee for communication in its PAN data and assessee had selected the address at 2659/3, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as address for communication. The assessee did not change the PAN data and that notice sent through speed post never returned back to the A.O. Therefore, there is a presumption that same have been duly served upon the assessee. In support of the contention, the Ld. D.R. filed copy of PAN data and also submitted that refund was also provided at the same address along with intimation under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of the receipt of speed post along with notice under section 143(2) dated 30.08.2000 also placed on record. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.B. Energy Corporation 337 ITR 389 (Del.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Vijay Agrotech, Balod, Baloda Bazar ... vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg on 24 January, 2024

In the matter of Burma Electric Corporation (supra) also, it has been helcl that if it is found upon confirmation by the partners that the money was, in fåct, receivedfrom them by the firm, in the absence of any material to indicate that it is the profit of the firm, it cannot be assessed as the firm's income though it may be assessed in the hands of individual partners as unexplained investment, if that is permissible under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Vijay Agrotech, Balod, Balod on 24 January, 2024

In the matter of Burma Electric Corporation (supra) also, it has been helcl that if it is found upon confirmation by the partners that the money was, in fåct, receivedfrom them by the firm, in the absence of any material to indicate that it is the profit of the firm, it cannot be assessed as the firm's income though it may be assessed in the hands of individual partners as unexplained investment, if that is permissible under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Titivate Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.,Kolkata vs Ito, Ward-91(1), Kolkata on 27 November, 2024

circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain the order of Ld. CIT(A). We find support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra) "That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under Section 131 at the instance of the respondent, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the respondent could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. I f the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Pcj Finvest Private Limited, Siliguri, ... on 28 March, 2025

The ld AR argued that though the directors of the assessee company did not appear before the AO but furnished all the evidences as called for by the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the appellate proceedings, all the evidences/details qua share capital/share premium were furnished along with written submission. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee filed the share application forms along with allotment letters, the proof of ITRs of the subscribers, payment of share application through cheques, bank accounts ,also proof of share subscribers having substantial net worth and assessment orders u/s 143(3)/143(1) of the Act in the case of subscribers. The ld. AR submitted that it is not the case of the ld. AO that cash was deposited in the banks of the subscribers before the making investments in the assessee company. The ld. AR further submitted that the addition cannot be made on the ground that there was no compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and in defense he is relied on the Page | 11 ITA No.1301/KOL/2023 PCJ Finvest Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 following decisions (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom);(iii)Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol);
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next