Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.30 seconds)
Shri Baljeet Yadav, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Jaipur on 26 November, 2018 cites

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 27 February, 2018

Secondly and more importantly, we find that the ld AR has sought to raise fresh contention before us for the first time and which is not borne out of the records and that is, the assessee has arranged the loans at personal level as against the contention before the lower 59 ITA No. 377/JP/2018 Shri Baljeet Yadav, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur authorities that the investment has been made out of assessee's own capital. As far as arranging loan at personal level is concerned, the same was duly considered by the AO though not found acceptable and addition was made under section 68 of the Act. As the assessee could not produce sufficient evidence in support of investment out of his own capital, the impunged addition was made under section 69 of the Act. If we were to accept the additional evidence, it would be accepting the fresh contention raised for a first time before us which cannot be accepted. The additional evidence in support of the assessee's existing contentions borne out of the record and that too, where the assessee demonstrate sufficient cause can be admitted in light of substantive justice, however, the additional evidence in support of fresh contentions raised for the first time before us cannot be accepted. In the result, the prayer for submitting the additional evidence is hereby declined. On merits, in absence of any evidence to support the source of investment out of assessee's own capital, the addition so made by the Assessing officer is sustained and the ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P. Mohanakala on 15 May, 2007

These are bank deposits. Therefore the learned A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68. The addition therefore deserves to be deleted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 observed : "Under section 68(i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; the material and attending circumstances available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature". The supreme court has further observed that deposits in bank not routed through books of accounts are not covered as unexplained credits u/s 68. The following case laws are also quoted in support: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 324 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd on 19 March, 1986

(i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (159 ITR 78) (SC) 49 ITA No. 377/JP/2018 Shri Baljeet Yadav, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur It was held that the assessee had given names and addresses of the alleged creditors, which were income tax assessees, their index nos. were also in the file of the Revenue, however, Revenue after issuing notices u/s 131 did not pursue the matter further and examined the source of income of the alleged creditors. There was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors. In these circumstances, Supreme Court held that no addition could be made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 585 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bakliwal Finvest Pvt. Ltd on 22 December, 2010

In any case, the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (supra) supports the case of the assessee where it was held that certainly deposit of cash and immediate transfer of cheque or clearance of the cheque within a day or two casts a doubt as the transaction appears to be somewhat doubtful but suspicion howsoever strong it may be is not sufficient itself and cannot result in addition u/s 68.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - K J Sengupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next