Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.18 seconds)
M/S. Lalbaba Seamless Tubes Pvt. ... vs Dcit, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata on 21 October, 2022 cites

Commissioner Customs,(Preventive) ... vs M/S Maa Gauri Traders,Prop.Shyamal ... on 21 August, 2019

conducted on Shri K.M. Naita who controlled the M/s Clubside Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and during survey it was revealed that the said company was providing accommodation entries. However the said fact was never brought to the notice of the assessee during the assessment proceedings of the assessee. We also note that Mr. Sushil Kumar Naita has given a sworn affidavit a copy of which is filed at page 110 of PBstating that no accommodation entry was ever provided to the assessee. We note that said affidavit was available before both the authorities below but has remained uncontroverted. Mr. K.M. Naita was neither examined by the AO nor any cross- examination was afforded to the assessee. It is settled legal position that the statement given during survey cannot be used to make addition in the hands of the assessee unless the assessee was allowed to cross-examine the person who gave statement which was used against the assessee to make the addition. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE vs. Shyam Traders (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Dcit, Cir-10(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Maa Amba Towers Ltd., Kolkata on 12 October, 2018

various details/documents from the assessee in respect of investments and the investors which were duly supplied to the AO. Besides the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to these companies calling for certain information/evidences which were duly furnished by all the investors and are available on record. We note that AO has not issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the directors of the investor companies however made an addition on the basis that directors were not brought or produced by the assessee. We note that the assessee has furnished all the evidences during the assessment proceedings which are available at page 1 to 631 of PB-2 which comprised of ITR's, audited financial statements, bank statements, source of investments etc. We also note that these investors were too selected for scrutiny assessments and assessment were framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and no addition was made in the hands of the investors except M/s Clubside Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in which the entire amount of money raised to the tune of Rs. 36.53 Cr was added to the income, out of which the said company had invested in the share capital of the assessee. Therefore ,we find merit in the contentions of the Ld. A.R that once the addition made in the hands of subscribing company, no further addition could be made as this amounts to double addition of the same amount. The case of the assessee finds support to the decision of Kolkata bench in the case of ITO Vs Happy Structure ITA No. 1977/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 order dated 22.05.2019 which referred and relied on the another decision of coordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs M/S Maa Amba Towers ITA No. 1381/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2012-12 order dated 10.10.2018.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

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

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

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Raj Kumar Agarwal [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 3 March, 2006

attention to the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal vide ITA No. 179/2008 dated 17.11.2009 wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court took a view that non-production of the director of a Public Limited Company which is regularly assessed to Income tax having PAN, on the ground that the identity of the investor is not proved cannot be sustained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 103 - Full Document

Ito, Chennai vs S.Devinder Singh, Chennai on 24 August, 2017

In the instant case before us also, the assesse has furnished all the evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but neither AO nor ld CIT(A) commented on these evidences filed by the assessee. Considering these facts in the light of ratio laid down in the decisions as discussed above , we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 1 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Ito, W.12(2), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Happy Structure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata on 22 May, 2019

In defense of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of ITO vs. Happy Structure Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1977/Kol/2016 for AY 2012-13 dated 22.05.2019, DCIT vs. Maa Amba Towers in ITA No. 1381/Kol/2015 for AY 2012-13 dated 12.10.2018 and Steelex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA NO. 2666/Kol/2019 for AY 2012-13 dated 09.09.2022. The Ld. A.R. while referring to page 58 to 67 of PB, submitted that all the investor companies were active. The Ld. A.R. further argued the survey conducted on Shri K.M. Naita who is controlling M/s Clubside Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. was never brought to the notice of the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings and also the fact that Shri K.M. Naita was the director of M/s Clubside Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R. also referred to the affidavit of the director of the assessee company Mr. Sushil Kumar Naita who has furnished a sworn affidavit the copy of which is filed at page 110 of PB affirming on oath that no accommodation entries were provided to the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that such details were 5 I.T.A. No.2641/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Lalbaba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Ltd .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next