Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dwarkadhish Financial Services on 7 April, 2005
Relying on the various documents placed on
record and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s Lovely Export Pvt.
Ltd. which is directly on the issue of share capital and
in view of the decisions cited above, the addition on
account of share capital cannot be sustained. The AO
has nowhere proved that documents in support of the
identity of the parties have not been placed on record
or they were forged documents. The AO also has not
brought any evidence on record regarding the facts
that the share applicants were not creditworthy or
genuine, despite the fact that their PAN and copies of
I.T. Return were submitted by the appellant. After
considering the facts on record, judicial
pronouncements of the jurisdictional High Court and
Hon'ble Supreme Court it can be concluded that the
appellant has undoubtedly proved the identity of the
share applicant. Once the identity of these share
applicants is proved, no addition can be made in the
hands of the appellant even if the share applicants
have been found to be persons of no means until and
unless it is otherwise proved by the revenue. The
revenue could not prove that the money received by
the appellant in the form of share application money
has come from its own sources.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New ... vs East West Import & Export (P) Ltd.,(Now ... on 8 February, 1989
In this situation, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly relied
and followed the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs Lovely
13 ITA No. 4086/Del/2010
Asstt.Year: 2003-04
Export P. Ltd.(supra). We also observe that the Assessing Officer has nowhere
proved that the documents in support of the identity and creditworthiness of the
share applicants have not been placed on record or they were found as forged
documents in the course of verification. In the assessment order and remand
report, the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence regarding the fact that
the share applicants were not creditworthy or genuine despite the fact that the
PAN Nos. and the copies of the income tax returns were submitted before the
Assessing Officer by the assessee. In this situation, when the identity of the share
applicants is proved by the assessee and the Assessing Officer has not brought
any adverse material or fact against the share applicants, then no addition can be
made in the hands of appellants. We hold that the Assessing Officer could not
prove that the money received by the assessee from alleged three companies in
the form of share application money had come from the own sources of the
assessee. In this situation, we are unable to see any perversity, infirmity or any
other valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income
Tax(A). Accordingly, ground no.1 and additional ground no. (i), (ii) and (iii)
being devoid of merits are dismissed.
Commissioenr Of Income Tax vs M/S. Century Vision Pvt Ltd on 16 September, 2008
"The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide ITA No.
463/2010 in the case of CIT Vs Suntech Vision Ltd.
has held that:
1