Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.43 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Navodaya Castles Pvt Ltd. on 25 August, 2014
i. that the amount deposited in cash of the depositor into the books of
the assessee company and depositor has also received the cash from
M/s. Godavari Build well Pvt. Ltd and therefore it does not prove
genuineness of the transaction. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax Vs.
Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 306 (Del) which has been upheld by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 230 Taxmann 268.
M/S Deepak Agr Foods vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 11 July, 2008
Ii. It was also his contention that when notices issued u/s 133(6) of the act
remained un-responded and when it is submitted that it belongs to a
group of the well known builder such as Emaar MGF, transaction
should have been initiated not in cash but through the banking
channel. He further submitted that there is no evidence that company
belongs to the same group. He further submitted that no remand
report has been called for by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) and therefore he submitted that the Tribunal is duty bound
to correct whatever error haven been left into the assessment orders
etc. For this he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High in the case
of CIT V Manish Build well private Limited 928/2011 (Del) 15.11.2011 and
also of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Deepak Agro Foods
Vs. State of Rajasthan in Civil Appeal No.4327-28/2008. He further relied
on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.
Jan Samparak Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ITA 525/2014 dated
11.03.2015.
1