Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 313 (7.14 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 2 April, 2018

Ito, Ward- 1)1), Nagpur vs Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur on 2 September, 2024

10.9. Reliance further placed on CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bombay HC) wherein it has been held that the proviso to s. 68 (which creates an obligation on the issuing Co. to explain the source of share capital & premium) has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and does not have retrospective effect. Prior thereto, as per Lovely Exports 317 ITR 218 (SC), if the AO regards the share premium as bogus, he has to assess the shareholders but cannot assess the same as the issuing company's unexplained cash credit."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs M/S.Mayuresh Logistics Private ... on 24 June, 2019

10.5 We find that Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, different Hon'ble High Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court had already dealt with similar situations and there are a plethora of judgments on the identical grounds. For instance, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) has held that when the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR Number and had also given cheque number, name of bank, and the AO did nothing except issuing summons which were ultimately returned back with an endorsement "Not Traceable", Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of cash credit in respect of share application money, In the case of CIT v Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (ITA 1613 of 2014 dated 20.03.2017) has held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v Lovely Exports P Ltd (317 ITR 218) is applicable for all 31 I.T.A. No. 6691/Mum/2017 and C.O. No. 47/Mum/2019 M/s Mayuresh Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Karan Kothari Jewellers Pvt.Ltd, ... vs Dy . Commissioner Of Income Tax Central ... on 3 December, 2018

"and the Hon'ble [TAT, Kolkata in the case of SubhalakshmiVanijya (P) Ltd. had held that the operation of proviso as inserted in Section 68 of the LT. Act by Finance Act, 2012 shail be rétrospective. However, | find that in a recently concluded judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court it was held that the operation of proviso to. Section 68 is to be prospective and not retrospective. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Income Tax Appeal. No. 1613 of 2014 (CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) decided on 20/03/2017 has held the fotlowing:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer,6(3)(4), Mumbai vs Knowell Enterprises Private Limited, ... on 27 February, 2019

Thus, based on our detailed discussions as above, we have no hesitation in upholding invocation of provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act for reopening of the concluded assessment based on factual matrix of the case as discussed in details as above and we overturn the decision of learned CIT(A) on the legal ground of reopening of concluded assessment by invocation of provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act and hold that invocation of provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act was correctly undertaken by the AO and the AO was having reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and they were not merely reason to suspect. At the stage of invocation of provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act for reopening of the assessment, it is not the water tight proof which is required that income has escaped assessment to re-open the case u/s 147 but a prima facie bonafide belief that the income has escaped assessment. In this case before us, the assessment was never originally framed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act but return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and the reopening is sought to be done within four years from the end of the assessment. Thus, we hold reopening u/s 147 as was done by the AO to be valid and set aside the appellate 103 I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2017 order of learned CIT(A). However ,so far as merits of the issues are concerned, we have observed that learned CIT(A) has on the one hand has stated that since the issue is decided by her on legal ground wherein reopening of the assessment was considered as invalid and bad in law , thus, there is no reason for her to adjudicate the issue on merits and at the same breath she has placed reliance on decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructures Private Limited in ITA no. 1613 of 2014, order dated 20.03.2017 to allow grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenging assessment order on the merits of the issue. The learned CIT(A) passed a very cryptic order which in our opinion is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned CIT(A) whose powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO is required to adjudicate on the factual matrix of the case keeping in view provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 to see whether evidence on record satisfy the ingredients of provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act as to identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transaction of raising of share capital and share premium. Thus, on merits also the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and we set aside the same on merits too. Thus, we are setting aside the issues in this appeal on merits to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the issue of raising share capital and share premium to be adjudicated keeping in view provisions of Section 68 and all other relevant provisions of the 1961 Act. Needless to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in denovo adjudication proceedings in accordance with law in accordance with principles of natural justice. The learned CIT(A) shall allow assessee to file necessary and relevant evidences/explanations in its defence in denovo adjudication proceedings in 104 I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2017 accordance with law. The Revenue appeal is allowed as indicated above. We order accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahendra H. Shah , Mumbai vs Ito - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai on 27 September, 2021

"Coming to the case laws relied upon the assessee, the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (2017) 394 ITR680 (Bom). We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee in the light of facts of the present case and find that the Hon'ble High Court categorically observed that "..........the three essential tests while confirming the pre proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on bhelaf of the revenue that such large amount of share premium 15 ITA No. 6892/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13) Shri Mahendra H. Shah gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 74 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next