Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P. Mohanakala on 15 May, 2007
11. We are also in agreement with the contention of the ld. AR that the ratio laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Mohanakala (supra) does not
apply to the facts of the present case because in that case, assessee received foreign
gifts from one common donor and the payments were made to them by instruments
issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective accounts of the assessee by
negotiation though a bank in India. Above all, the Assessing Officer brought on
record positive evidence that donor was to receive compensation against donations.
Hence it was finally held, as a final fact, by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer was
right in treating the donations/receipts in the hands of the assessee as income u/s 68
of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Poona vs Bhaichand H. Gandhi on 12 February, 1982
8. Lastly, the ld. AR submitted that the affidavit of the assessee dated 12.2.2012
and affidavit of the payer Mr. Giang Tran along with all documents clearly show
that not only identity of the payer is proved but the genuineness of the transaction
and creditworthiness of the payer is also fully established beyond doubt and addition
u/s 68 of the Act could not be made as per provisions of the Act. Ld. AR also placed
reliance on the order of ITAT 'A' Bench Delhi in the case of Ms Mayawati vs
DCIT (2008) 19 SOT 460 (Delhi) and order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
the case of CIT vs Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) and submitted that
the passbook or bank statement supplied by the bank to the assessee cannot be
regarded as a cash book or accounts maintained by the assessee or under his
instruction and thus the same does not fall within the ambit of section 68.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1