Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kundan Investment Ltd. on 20 March, 2003
In the cases relied upon by learned DR Dhar Ispat (P) Ltd.s (supra) Kundan Investment Ltd. (supra) Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (supra) and Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. (supra), it was held that "burden of proof - Company - Subscription received by Company -Company must prove genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of subscribers". It is also held that "if identity of the subscribers are not established and no evidence of genuineness of transaction is furnished, the amount is assessable under Section 68".
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. on 31 August, 1992
In the cases relied upon by learned DR Dhar Ispat (P) Ltd.s (supra) Kundan Investment Ltd. (supra) Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (supra) and Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. (supra), it was held that "burden of proof - Company - Subscription received by Company -Company must prove genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of subscribers". It is also held that "if identity of the subscribers are not established and no evidence of genuineness of transaction is furnished, the amount is assessable under Section 68".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ruby Traders And Exporters Ltd. on 17 September, 2004
In the cases relied upon by learned DR Dhar Ispat (P) Ltd.s (supra) Kundan Investment Ltd. (supra) Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (supra) and Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. (supra), it was held that "burden of proof - Company - Subscription received by Company -Company must prove genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of subscribers". It is also held that "if identity of the subscribers are not established and no evidence of genuineness of transaction is furnished, the amount is assessable under Section 68".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Steller Investment Ltd. on 20 July, 2000
In the case of Steller Investment Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the revenue holding that the Tribunal came to the conclusion on fact and no interference is called for in the case of Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd. (supra), the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal considered that Commissioner (Appeals) rightly considered the case of the assessee that assessing officer did not have any clinching evidence to show that the shareholders exist on the shareholders list of the company was not genuine.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Down Town Hospital Ltd. on 9 August, 2001
In the case of Down Town Hospital (P) Ltd. (supra) the finding of the fact was that identity of the creditors had been established. Therefore, it was held that Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition.
Shree Bharkha Synthetics Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 November, 2001
8. The decision referred to by learned Counsel for the assessee in the case of Bharkha Synthetics Ltd. (supra), it was held that assessee is only to prove the existence of the persons in whose names share application is received. Once existence of investor is proved, there is no further burden on the assessee to prove whether that person itself has invested the said money or some other person has made investment in the name of that person.
Section 251 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sophia Finance Ltd. on 27 August, 1993
14. On consideration of the above facts and considering the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench C in the case of Gujarat Filament Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that assessee being a limited company is an artificial judicial person, there could be no personal user of telephone and vehicle by the assessee. The disallowance appears to be ad hoc in nature. We, accordingly, set-aside the orders of the authorities below and delete both the additions.