Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.68 seconds)
Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs Mesers Aryan Builders And Developers ... on 6 September, 2023 cites

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

13. In backdrop of aforesaid observations of the Ld CIT(A) in the present case, it is evident that Ld AO has squirely failed in substantiating that how the onus cast upon the assessee was not discharges u/s 68 of the act. AO further erred by neither making any specific comments nor have demonstrated the reasons for adverse conclusions about the share subscribers which could be supported with the documents or borne out from the records. Ld AO also misplaced in her observations by not distinguishing that how the facts of the present case are different on which binding judgments in the case of Lovely Exports (supra) and Venkteshwar Ispat (supra), relied upon by the assessee, are not applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 633 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Asst Cit 24(2), Mumbai vs Lovely Fragrances, Mumbai on 7 December, 2018

Under such facts and circumstances, respectfully following the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports(supra) and was adopted by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh in the Case of M/s Venkateshwar Ispat (supra), we concur with the decision of the order of Ld CIT(A) having no infirmity, in absence of any divergent argument advanced by the revenue apart from the contentions raised and considered herein above, or without any cogent material or decision having different binding consequence on the instant case, we do not have any distinct opinion other than that of the opinion of Ld CIT(A), thus, we order to sustain the same. Resultantly grounds raised in the present appeal by revenue are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 100 - Full Document

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited, ... vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, ... on 17 August, 2021

• Further in that case, Assessing Officer did not hold requisite investigation except for calling for records, he also did not interrogate persons behind assessee company and persons behind subscribing companies which was essential to unearth truth • Further, in that case, the decision of Calcutta High Court was only in respect of whether commissioner was justified in treating assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, against which SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court. However there is no decision as far as genuineness of share-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next