Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)

Astral Capitals Private Limited, New ... vs Ito Ward-3(3), New Delhi on 19 February, 2020

Therefore, it is not the case where the investment is made in vacuum. Considering the material placed before me, I am of the considered view that the assessee has brought on record certain evidence that goes to prove that the amount was received from one of its Director, who herself is an income-tax assessee and filed her return of income. The Assessing Officer should have very well verified from the return of the concerned Director regarding source of such amount given to the assessee company. The Assessing Officer has also not stated as to what action was taken in 14 ITA no. 1723/Del/2020 Astral Properties & Constructions Vs. ITO the case of Director of the company. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned transaction was executed between two parties i.e. assessee company and its Director. The Director is the giver of the amount in the transaction and the assessee company is the recipient of the amount. Hence, the Assessing Officer ought to have investigated from both the parties for verifying the veracity of the transaction. The assessee has discharged its primary burden by furnishing the source of the investment. Under these facts it was open to Assessing Authority to make further investigation. In the absence of bringing any adverse material regarding creditworthiness of the Director and genuineness of the transaction, I am of the view that the addition made and sustained by the learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified. The same is, therefore, deleted. Ground is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R. Mallika vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai on 6 July, 2015

13.4 There is sufficient evidence on record to establish that identity of the creditor as discussed by the assessee is meaningless in view of the above facts and also in view of the silence of the assessee to provide the latest or the current status of investment. These web of transactions have been created with a clear attempt to create a colorable device with attempt to evade taxes in the form of accommodation entry. Reliance on the above is also drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of r. Mallika Vs. CIT reported in [2017] 79 Taxmann.com 117 (SC), wherein it was held that "where assessee had not discharged burden as regards source 13 ITA no. 1723/Del/2020 Astral Properties & Constructions Vs. ITO from which investment had been made, investment was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs M/S Mani Stock Brokers Ltd(Now Mani ... on 12 September, 2019

In ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Section 147 authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 143 - Full Document

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997

7.3.2 It has been held in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others [236 ITR 34] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 717 - Full Document
1   2 Next