Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.63 seconds)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs R K M Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai on 6 November, 2024 cites

Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.,, ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 23 January, 2018

The matter is now beyond any dispute because after the decision of the Bombay High Court in the Vodafone India case, the CBDT issued an instruction No 2 of 2015 noting that the Court had held that share premium was a capital account transaction that does not give rise to income and that the Board had accepted the said decision and directed that all field officers should adhere to the ratio decidendi of this judgement. This Instruction is binding on the Assessing Officer under Section 119 of the Act, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case UCO bank Vs.CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC). Therefore the action of the learned :-67-: ITA. Nos: 799 & 800/Chny/2023 CIT Appeals in applying the CBDT Instruction to delete the addition cannot be faulted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 104 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Pcit-3 vs M/S. Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd on 20 July, 2018

9.9 It appears that the Assessing Officer resorted to Section 56(1) since he could not invoke Section 68, since the identity and the solvency of Mudajaya and Enerk had been well established. Both parties had been subject to KYC verification by the banks as part of the process under FDI Regulations. The genuineness or credit worthiness of these parties has not been questioned in the impugned assessments. The hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v Bharat Securities [2020] 113 taxmann.com 32 (SC) and PCIT v Rohtak Chain Co P Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)has held that once the identity of the shareholders is proven share capital cannot be assessed under Section 68.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - A Bose - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next