Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 June, 2016 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Divine Leasing And Finance Ltd. [Along ... on 16 November, 2006

After receiving the aforesaid documentary evidences filed by the assessee, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has given an opportunity to the AO to verify the same, but the AO has not availed the opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to him. After going through all the evidences produced by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute by holding that once the identity, creditworthiness of the share holders and genuineness of the transactions is proved by 17 ITA NOS. 306 & 647/Del/2010 furnishing all particulars of the share applicants alongwith other documentary evidences, then the Assessee has discharged its onus and there cannot be any addition in the hands of the assessee company in the matter of share application money or share capital. The view of the Ld. CIT(A) has also been supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 and CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2007) 299 ITR 278 (Delhi High Court). In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions in dispute by passing a well reasoned and detailed order while relying upon the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no interference is required on our part in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 412 - V Sen - Full Document

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

"In any event we also note that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 considered the question as to whether the share application money can be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court dismissing the SLP observed that if the share money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Department is free to proceed to assess them individually, in accordance with law. The Supreme Court did not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High 12 ITA NOS.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 633 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Prakash Chand Nahta vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 August, 2000

306 & 647/Del/2010 of cross examination of all the adverse material on the basis of which impugned addition has been made in the assessment order. It is settled proposition of law that the information gathered behind the back of the assessee cannot be used against him unless until an opportunity of rebutting the same is given to the assessee. It is against the principle of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prakash Chand Nahta v. Union of India [2001] 247 ITR 274 in support of the proposition that cross- examination of the witness is must, before the A.O. relies on the statement of the witness for making addition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Nathu Ram Premchand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 30 August, 1962

Reliance is also placed on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 561, wherein the Hon'ble Court explained that it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of a witness, if his witness is material in exercise of his powers under order 16, r. 10 of CPC and where the officer does not do so, no inference can be drawn against the assessee.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S Chanakaya Exports Pvt. Ltd on 16 July, 2015

After receiving the aforesaid documentary evidences filed by the assessee, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has given an opportunity to the AO to verify the same, but the AO has not availed the opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to him. After going through all the evidences produced by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute by holding that once the identity, creditworthiness of the share holders and genuineness of the transactions is proved by 17 ITA NOS. 306 & 647/Del/2010 furnishing all particulars of the share applicants alongwith other documentary evidences, then the Assessee has discharged its onus and there cannot be any addition in the hands of the assessee company in the matter of share application money or share capital. The view of the Ld. CIT(A) has also been supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 and CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2007) 299 ITR 278 (Delhi High Court). In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions in dispute by passing a well reasoned and detailed order while relying upon the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no interference is required on our part in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 88 - Full Document
1   2 Next