Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Saral Plastics Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1),, ... on 25 May, 2017 cites

Cit vs Nipun Builders & Develpers Pvt. Ltd. on 7 January, 2013

13.4 Further as regards to the issue as to whether the peak credit theory should have been applied to each party individually or cumulatively. We find it pertinent to reproduce findings of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of SR Enterprises V/s ITO(Supra) wherein fact are quite similar so much so that in this case assesse failed to file confirmation before Ld.AO and some of parties stated that cash was not given by them to the assesee. Ld.AO made an addition on each cash credit whereas Tribunal held peak of the ITA Nos.3118 & 3064/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 16 credit should be applied. In deciding so Co-ordinate Bench observe as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 171 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New ... vs East West Import & Export (P) Ltd.,(Now ... on 8 February, 1989

19. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.(supra) and examining the fact of the case before us, we find that issue is squarely covered by this judgment and are of the view that if the impugned interest expenditure on which tax has not been deducted u/s.194A and if they have been offered to income by the recipient and due taxes has been paid , then no disallowance is called for in the hands of assessee. We accordingly set aside this issue to the file of Ld.AO and direct the assessee to produce necessary evidence including certificate from Chartered Accountant of the non banking finance company's certifying that the interest received from assessee is forming part of the gross revenue of these non banking finance company which have been duly offered to tax in their return of income. Needless to mention that Ld.AO will provide sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assesse. In the result this ground of assesse is allowed for statistical purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 633 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Cit vs Titan Securities Ltd. on 28 February, 2013

(a)(vii) The ratio of this judgment was followed by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Titan Securities Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 164. It is therefore all the three ingredient viz. identify, genuinity and credit worthiness has to be proved by assessee independently. Here in the case of appellant all the three ingredients are unsubstantiated therefore, the addition so made of Rs. 16,61,700/- is upheld and confirmed.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 15 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Cit, Ernakulam vs P.K. Noorjahan (Smt) on 15 January, 1997

6.1. It is now well accepted proposition that even addition for unproved trade credit can be made. When it is brought on record that the cash introduced in the books of account, is not genuine and assessee's own money, there is no material' difference whether it is introduced as "cash credit" or as "trade credit". In both the, cases, the credit is to be assessed as "deemed income" of the assessee. I further do not find any substance in the argument that cash credits appear on the liability side whereas sundry debtors appear on the asset side of the balance sheet and, therefore section 68 is not applicable to trade credits. The above is true of genuine cash credits and not of credit entries which are held to be non- genuine. The strong reliance of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan(supra) is also not of any avail. The decision was given on the peculiar facts before the Court and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case before me. Therefore. I do not find any substance in the submissions advanced by Shri J.P. Shah except the one relating to the working of the addition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 410 - Full Document
1