Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.66 seconds)
Riddhi Siddhi Commercial Pvt. Ltd., , ... vs Ito, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata , Kolkata on 14 November, 2018 cites

Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954

8. It is a well settled principle of law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs.CIT (214 ITR 801)(SC) that the true nature of transaction have to be ascertained In the light of surrounding circumstances. It needs to be emphasized that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no applicability In determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, It Is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the Investigation report. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be Ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AD Is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 706 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Kamala Prasad Kajaria Huf, Kolkata vs Ito, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata , Kolkata on 24 May, 2018

Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in favour of the impugned loss disallowance. The Revenue vehemently contends that the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the impugned loss(es) for the reason that Shri Sachet Saraf (Director/ main person) of M/s Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd had deposed before the DIT(Inv) Kolkata to have provided bogus entries of loss in currency derivatives by taking cheques and returning cash to the beneficiaries / assessees. I find no merit in Revenue's instant substantive plea. This tribunal's co-ordinate bench's decision in ITA No. 1760/Kol/2017 Kamla Prasad Kajaria (HUF) vs. ITO decided on 24.05.2018 has deleted identical disallowance as follows:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Bonanza Commodities Brokers Pvt.Ltd vs Mrs. Roshanara Bhinder on 16 April, 2015

"4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the claim of the assessee for the impugned loss incurred in trading in derivatives was disallowed by the authorities below mainly on the ground that the assessee had not given any margin money to the broker before the relevant transactions and in his statement, the Director of the broker company had admitted that his company was indulging in providing bogus loss in currency derivatives as per the requirement of the clients. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned DR has laid emphasis on these two aspects in support of the revenue's case. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the assessee by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bonanja Commodities Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs Mrs. Roshanara Bhinder (arbitration petition 195 of 2015 dated 16.04.2015), the collection of margin money as per the by-laws of MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. is only discretionary in nature and the transactions entered into by the clients without payment of margin money cannot be considered as illegal. As further contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, there is nothing in the statement of Shri Sachit Saraf, Director of the broker company nor anything has been brought on record by the A.O. to show that the transactions entered into by the assessee company through the said broker were bogus. As matter of fact, a perusal of the order of the A.O. shows that enquiry was directly made by him from MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. by issuing the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act in order to verify the transactions entered into by the assessee through M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and in reply to the said notice, MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. had not only confirmed the transactions but had also furnished the required information along with a CD containing details of all transactions made by the assessee during the year under consideration through broker Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. As found by the A.O. on verification of the said details, total transactions involving sales of Rs.15,19,22,392/- and purchases of Rs. 15,19,23,880/- were made by the assessee resulting into a loss of Rs.1,488/-. This relevant evidence confirming the genuineness of the transactions made by the assessee on MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. was brushed aside by the A.O. on the ground that loss shown therein was Rs. 1,488/- whereas the assessee had claimed a loss of Rs. 5,17,141/-. As submitted on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before us, expenditure was incurred by the assessee relating to the said transactions on account of brokerage, service tax and other charges levied by the broker aggregating to Rs.5,15,653/- and accordingly the total loss as claimed by the assessee was to the tune of Rs. 5,17,141/-.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 20 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Smt. Shruti Devi Kajaria, Kolkata vs Dcit, Circle - 36, Kolkata , Kolkata on 5 October, 2018

4. I have given my thoughtful considerations to rival contentions. I find a co- ordinate bench's decision in Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria & Smt. Shruti Devi Kajaria vs. DCIT, Circle-36 Kol in ITA No.1759 & 1761/Kol/2017 decided on 05.10.2018 had deleted the similar disallowance of loss made by the lower authorities on the basis of Shri Sachete Saraf as follows:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next