Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 94 (3.29 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Victor Electodes Ltd on 12 May, 2010

M/S Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Kota vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 12 February, 2019

6.11 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under the law is given to the income tax authorities only and therefore, in view of the judgment CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, the Appellant cannot be fastened upon the burden to produce the lenders before the assessing authorities though in the instance case, appellant has cooperated in assessment by showing his willingness to produce the directors of lender companies and some directors/officer were also produced before the AO. Thus, in view of the judicial precedents referred above, under the facts and circumstances of the present case it is untenable to make any addition for alleged non-appearance by the concerned person before the authorities though they complied with the notices/summon issued to them.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 69 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ajnara India Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 May, 2010

In this decision, in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. (supra), it has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that there is no legal obligation on the assessee to produce some director or representative of the applicant companies before the AO, and, therefore, failure of assessee to produce them could not, by itself, have justified the additions made by the Assessing Officer, when the assessee had furnished documents, on the basis of which, the AO, if he so wanted, could have summoned them for verification. Similarly in the present case, mere because directors of share applicant companies were not found available at the addresses given, that by itself is not sufficient for the AO to reject assessee's case when the 24 assessee has furnished all documents relating to share applicants, such as their Permanent Account No., details of Income-tax assessment, registration of companies under Companies Act and bank details. Therefore, this case is also squarely applicable to the present case in upholding the order of the CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 29 January, 2019

6.11 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under the law is given to the income tax authorities only and therefore, in view of the judgment CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, the Appellant cannot be fastened upon the burden to produce the lenders before the assessing authorities though in the instance case, appellant has cooperated in assessment by showing his willingness to produce the directors of lender companies and some directors/officer were also produced before the AO. Thus, in view of the judicial precedents referred above, under the facts and circumstances of the present case it is untenable to make any addition for alleged non-appearance by the concerned person before the authorities though they complied with the notices/summon issued to them.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 74 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 31 May, 2016

In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Victor Electrodes Ltd. (supra), Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra) and Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the assessee has duly discharged the onus which lay upon it to prove the credit in the form of share capital. Accordingly, the addition made for unexplained share capital is deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Tirupati Balaji Estate Private ... on 12 February, 2019

5.10 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under the law is given to the income tax authorities only and therefore, in view of the judgment CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, the Appellant cannot be fastened upon the burden to produce the investors before 88 ITA Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 66 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. Capaxo Logistics Pvt. Ltd, ... vs The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad on 13 April, 2022

4.4. The Assessing Officer has held that identity of share applicants could not be proved mainly for the reason that appellant has not submitted complete address in respect of Shri Vinodkumar Sharma and Shri Rameshbhai Thakor and appellant did not produce the share applicants. However, it is seen that appellant has given the pan, name and address of the share applicants. The bank details and complete address is also evident from the inquiry made from the bank by the Investigation Wing and reproduced by AO in the assessment order at Page No. 15 of the assessment order. The appellant has given reasons for non- production of share applicants as the share application money was returned to them in Financial Year 2010-11 and it is not possible to produce them after seven years. It has been held by Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 680/[2010] 329 ITR 271that mere non production of share applicant does not attract addition u/s. 68. I have called for copy of assessment orders passed by the respective Assessing Officers in the case of Ms. Hansaben Manilal Patel, Shri / Rameshbhai Thakor and Shri Vinodbhai Sharma where income has been assessed for the A. Y. 2010-11 making addition of the bank credit. In view of the above, as the appellant has submitted pan, address, bank statement of share applicants and the department has made the assessment of all the three share applicants, the Assessing Officers finding that identity was not established is contrary to facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Aastha Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs Dcit, Cc-Xix, Kolkata, Kolkata on 26 August, 2022

Further in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 it has been held that there is no legal obligation on the assessee to produce some Director or other representative of the Director or other representative of the applicant companies before the A.O. Therefore failure on part of the assessee to produce the Directors of the share applicant companies could not by itself have justified the additions made by the AO particularly when the seven share applicant companies through their present Directors have now again filed fresh affidavits confirming the application and allotment of shares with respect to the total amount of Rs. 45 Lacs. It is observed that no attempt was made by the AO to summon the Directors of the share applicant companies. Moreover, it is settled law that the asses see need not prove the "source of source". Accordingly it was incumbent upon the department to have enforced attendance of Shri Mahesh Garg or the erstwhile Directors of the share applicant companies and confronted them with the evidences & affidavits relied upon by the appellant and thereupon given opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these applicants".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Jammu Metallic Oxides Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 14 February, 2019

5.10 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under the law is given to the income tax authorities only and therefore, in view of the judgment CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, the Appellant cannot be fastened upon the burden to produce the investors before 88 ITA Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 69 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next