Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 100 (3.65 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ruby Traders And Exporters Ltd. on 17 September, 2004

Ito, Wd-2(1), Siliguri, Darjeeling vs M/S Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd., ... on 29 March, 2019

Mr. Dutta appearing on behalf of the petitioners cited judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Limited reported in 236 (2003) ITR 3000 where a Division Bench of this Court held that when Section 68 is resorted to, it is incumbent on the assessee company to prove and establish the identity of the subscribers, their credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Royal Manors Hotels Ind. Ltd., vs Department Of Income Tax

"The law with regard thereto has since been crystallised. Similar question was involved in I.T. Reference No. 20 of 1996) (Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 289 (Cal)) and I.T. Reference No. 78 of 1995 (CIT v. Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 300 (Cal)) disposed of by this court on March 11 and 12, 2003. The principal ingredient that has to be satisfied is to establish the identity of the subscribers and prove their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. We have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer at pages 9-13 of the paper book. It appears that the assessee had failed to establish any of these three ingredients in respect of the said amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order to Rs. 83,000 and accepted the balance simply because income-tax file numbers of the other subscribers were disclosed. It appears from pages 36-37 of the paper book containing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that these few persons who had subscribed 8,300 shares were not income-tax assessees. Therefore, only these were added.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Peoples General Hospital Ltd on 27 June, 2013

6. Considering the totality of facts of the case of the assessee and relying on the above case laws, it is found that the genuineness of claimed investment of Rs.21,27,50,403/- towards share capital/premium, from M/s Alliance Industries 13Ltd., Sharjah, UAE, an NRI Company, in the assessee-company during the year has not been proved as the financial capacity of the above NRI Company was not proved/established by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings despite due opportunity allowed to it. The alleged investment of Rs.21,27,50,403/- is, therefore, treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added in computation of the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04. The aforesaid unexplained credit of Rs.21,27,50,403/- is treated as income from undisclosed sources and accordingly it is not entitled to set off of brought forward business loss/depreciation of earlier years. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing 8 the particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately in this regard."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - M A Siddiqui - Full Document

Valueline Securities (I) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner on 22 May, 2006

In the case of Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. (supra) the company did not provide the identity of theshareholders but in the case of the appellant all the information necessaryto prove the genuineness was filed. The assessing officer made an effortto examine the issue on his own and wrote letters to the shareholders. All the shareholders, excepting a few, responded and confirmed the fact of investment. The facts were not put to the assessee. Therefore, the decisions of the Calcutta High Court have no application to the facts of the case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Ward-10(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Excel Inftabuild Private Limited, ... on 21 August, 2019

Mr. Dutta appearing on behalf of the petitioners cited judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Limited reported in 236 (2003) ITR 3000 where a Division Bench of this Court held that when Section 68 is resorted to, it is incumbent on the assessee company to prove and establish the identity of the subscribers, their credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Ward-5(1),, Kolkata vs M/S. Shivrashi Infraprojects Private ... on 18 June, 2025

As no compliance was made to the summons issued, the assessee was not engaged in any business activity even during the impugned A.Y. 2012-13, the identity of the companies in which investment was made was not disclosed despite several notices being issued and the investment was not made in listed companies with proven track record which were well exposed to the market and no details have been mentioned on the basis of which relief has been allowed, therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Neither the creditworthiness nor the genuineness of the transactions was established yet the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the relief which is not in accordance with the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra) and also in the case of M/s. BST Infratech Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we hereby set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to him with the direction that the appeal may be decided in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by the Revenue and which are also mentioned in the grounds of appeal and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO as required under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Max Movers Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata vs Dcit, Central Circle - 4(3),, Kolkata on 30 November, 2018

v. CIT [IT Reference No. 20 of 1996, dated 11/12-3-2003J and CIT v. Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. [IT Reference No. 78 of 1995, dated 11/12-3-2003J. The principal ingredient that has to be satisfied is to establish the identity of the subscribers and prove their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. We have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer at pages 9-13 of the paper book. It appears that the assessee had failed to establish any of these three ingredients in respect of the said amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order to Rs. 83,000 and accepted the balance simply because income-tax file numbers of the other subscribers were disclosed. It appears from pages 36-37 of the paper book containing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that these few persons who had subscribed 8,300 shares were not income-tax assessees. Therefore, only these were added.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 69 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next