Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (0.50 seconds)
Rainbow Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 6 November, 2017 cites

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

Following the decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - all the four parties, who are subscribers of the shares, are limited companies and enquiries were made and received from the four companies and all the companies accepted their investment - the assessee has categorically established the nature and source of the sum and discharged the onus that lies on it in terms of Section 68 of the Act - When the nature and source of the amount so invested is known, it cannot be said to be undisclosed income - the addition of such subscriptions as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act is unwarranted - Decided against Revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 633 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs Astt. Cit on 2 August, 2005

The learned CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 197 CTR (Raj) 432 and also the decision of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Uma Polymers (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (dt. 27th Feb., 2006) [reported at (2006) 101 TTJ (Jd)(TM) 124--Ed.] where it has been held that the assessee has to prove the existence of the shareholders which in the present case is not under dispute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next