Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 February, 1982
(i) Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT (supra)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rohini Builders on 19 March, 2001
In view of the above decision also, the assessee cannot be required to prove the source of the source and if the test of proving the identity of the shareholder as a genuine investor is applied, then the burden shall be cast upon the assessee to prove the source of the source, which is not the intention of the legislature so far as section 68 is concerned.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Steller Investment Ltd. on 20 July, 2000
"If the shareholders are identitied and it is established that they have invested moneys in purchase of shares, then the amount received by the company would be regarded as capital receipt and to that extent the observation in the case of Steller Investmeent (supra) are correct."
Cit, Ernakulam vs P.K. Noorjahan (Smt) on 15 January, 1997
In the case of CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has affirmed the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court. In that case, the issue related to investments made by the assessee, a Muslim lady aged 20 years, in the purchase of land, which was not found recorded in the books of accounts. The explanation of the assessee as to the source of the purchase money for the investment was not found to be satisfactory by the assessing officer, who made addition under section 69. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner concurred with the findings of the assessing officer. The Tribunal found the explanation about the nature and source of purchase money unsatisfactory, but it was of the opinion that although the explanation was liable to be rejected, but section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conferred only the discretion upon the Income Tax Officer to deal with the investment as income of the assessee and that it did not make it mandatory on his part to deal with the investment as income of the assessee as soon as latter's explanation happened to be rejected. On reference to the Hon'ble High Court, the view taken by the Tribunal was affirmed. On further appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of Hon'ble High Court and observed as under :
Sarogi Credit Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 December, 1974
27. The Hon'ble Patna High Court has also considered the issue in the case of Saraogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are reproduced below :
Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995
In the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (supra), the issue related to the cash deposits under section 68. It was held in that case that in all cases, in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is well within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable, because it falls within the exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee.
Shankar Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 21 March, 1978
(ii) Shankar Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal)
He submitted that since there is no dispute about the identity of the depositor and prima facie the deposit was found to be genuine, the creditworthiness of the assessee should not have been doubted.