Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (0.41 seconds)

Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995

Accordingly, relying on the decisions by the apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC); Durga Prasad More v. CIT [1971] 182 ITR 540 (SC) and MC. Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 (SC), besides by the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Som Nath Maini [2006] 7 SOT 202 (Chd.), he assessed the impugned credit of Rs. 12.15 lacs as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the addition observing that the purchase of shares was off market purchase not reported in the stock exchange. Further, it was observed by the Tribunal that the purchase was through a back date contract note in cash and, there was no trail. Thus it is noted that Tribunal in this case confirmed the addition on a factual finding that the purchase was through a back dated contract note in cash and, there was no trail. This fact is not applicable in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1298 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Sri Vivek Jhunjhunwala , Howrah vs Ito, Ward - 63(4), Kolkata on 15 February, 2019

According to Ld. AR, there is no evidence on record to disbelieve that the assessee sold shares through registered share and stock broker. The assessee produced all evidences to explain the source of the amounts received by the assessee from the brokers. The AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income. He also submitted that in respect of share of M/s. SRK the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal has already accepted the scrip of M/s. SRK vide its order dated 15.02.2019 in the case of Shri Vivek Jhunjhunwala Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2333/Kol/2018 for AY 2014-15. Therefore, he humbly prayed before the bench that the appeal of the assessee may please be allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next