Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.53 seconds)
Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, ... vs Amodini Vyapar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata on 31 December, 2024 cites

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10 ... vs M/S Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 23 January, 2020

011. In the instant case before us also, the assessee has furnished all the evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but AO has not commented on these evidences filed by the assessee. Besides the investors have also furnished complete details/evidences before the AO which proved the identity, creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of the transactions. Under these facts and circumstances and considering underlying facts in the light of ratio laid down in the decisions as discussed above , we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Crystal Networks (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 July, 2010

Page | 11 ITA No. 1481/KOL/2024 Amodini Vyapar pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 12-13 The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its findings on all contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner, in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. It is also ruled in the said judgment at page 465 that if the Tribunal does not discharge the duty in the manner as above then it shall be assumed the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from manifest infirmity.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 49 - K J Sengupta - Full Document

D.C.I.T Cir - 8,Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Abci Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, ... on 10 January, 2018

07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has furnished before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) all the evidences qua raising the share capital/ share premium during the year comprising the proofs of PAN cards, list of directors with share holders with DIN, copies of ITRs, copies of bank statements with full narration as to credit and debit entries, source of funds in the hands of investors etc. We note that assessee during the year has issued equity shares of face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of ₹490/- to various subscribers from whom the assessee has received Rs. 3,54,76,000/-.We find that though the assessee company/investors did not comply with summon u/s 131 by producing the director / principal officer/ individual of the share subscribing companies however, we note that they have filed all the details before the AO. We note that the AO has not done any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee as well as by the share subscribers independently and has not pointed any defect of any kind whatsoever. We note that the AO has only harped on the fact that the directors did not turn up on the date and time giving for personal deposition. Besides the AO has harped on the fact that these Page | 9 ITA No. 1481/KOL/2024 Amodini Vyapar pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 12-13 shares were allotted at very high premium by ignoring the facts that there was no bar on issue of shares of high premium in the AY 2012- 13 and the same was applicable from AY 2013-14 because Clause (viib) to Clause 2 section 56 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013. Similarly the provisions in Finance Act, 2012 that the assessee company issuing share premium have to prove source of source has been inserted with effect from 1.4.2013 and is not applicable in the case of assessee for AY 2013-14 onwards. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom). Therefore, the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) directing the AO to delete the addition is based on the correct appreciation of facts on record and the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Courts in the various decisions as discussed hereinbelow. In our opinion, the addition cannot be made merely on the ground that the summon issued u/s 131 to the directors of the assessee company were not complied with whereas on the other hand the assessee has filed all the evidences called for by the AO qua the subscribers. We also noted that even the notice issued u/s 131 of the Act was partly complied with as all the details called for by the AO were duly furnished nonetheless no personal appearance was made for deposition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next