Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 490 (7.53 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Divine Leasing And Finance Ltd. [Along ... on 16 November, 2006

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai on 15 October, 2018

ITA Nos7310 to 7313/Mum/2017 necessary information from the sources to which the said information was attributable to. No such exercise had been conducted by the A. 0. In any event what both the A. 0. and the ITAT lost track of was that it was dealing with the assessment of the company, i.e., the recipient of the loan and not that of its directors and shareholders or that of the sub- creditors. If it had any doubts with regard to their credit worthiness, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of the creditors and/or sub- creditors. [See CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)!.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 401 - Cited by 184 - Full Document

Gagan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs Assessee on 31 October, 2011

29. As per the provisions of section 68 of the Act, in case the assessee has not been able to give satisfactory explanation in respect of nature and source of any sum or if in the opinion of the Assessing Officer such explanation is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer may treat the same as undisclosed income and add it to the income of the assessee meaning thereby the assessee is required to give satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of such sums found credited in the books of account. What kind of proof is 30 to be furnished by the assessee is a question. It has come up for discussion in various judgments rendered by various Hon'ble Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. The law discussed by the Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Limited (2008) 299 ITR 268 is also an important decision to quote. A delicate balance has to be maintained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ad-Manum Finane Ltd., Indore vs Assessee on 7 September, 2011

29. As per the provisions of section 68 of the Act, in case the assessee has not been able to give satisfactory explanation in respect of nature and source of any sum or if in the opinion of the Assessing Officer such explanation is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer may treat the same as undisclosed income and add it to the income of the assessee meaning thereby the assessee is required to give satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of such sums found credited in the books of account. What kind of proof is to be furnished by the assessee is a question. It has come up for discussion in various judgments rendered by various Hon'ble 63 Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. The law discussed by the Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Limited (2008) 299 ITR 268 is also an important decision to quote. A delicate balance has to be maintained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, New Delhi vs M/S. Sohail Financials Ltd., New Delhi on 28 September, 2018

"On going through the decision in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance (Supra) and other relevant case law it is clear that the degree of onus would depend upon the facts of each case and no standard degree of proof can be applied generally to all cases, irrespective of the nature of receipts because in the case of share investment for public placements the degree of proof mav be light but in the case of private placement if may be stringent, the reason being a public issue cannot be made by a Private Limited Company. However with requisite permission the share capital can be received through private placement normally to known persons / companies. Similar would be the position when the shares are allotted by a Public Company on private placement basis".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 45 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next