Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10 ... vs M/S Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 23 January, 2020
We also draw our force
from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case
of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held
that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove
the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside
by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Madan Mohan Lall Shri Ram P. Ltd. on 22 September, 1983
Ltd. (333 ITR 119) (Delhi HC) CIT v.
P. Mohankala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291
ITR 278 (SC), ITO v. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd. (20
taxmann.com 153) (ITAT Mumbai)
8
ITA No. 138//Mum/2025
Swikrutee Finance Pvt Ltd., Mumbai.
Asst Cit 24(2), Mumbai vs Lovely Fragrances, Mumbai on 7 December, 2018
CBDT Circular No. F. No.286/2/2003/IT(inv) dated
11.03.2003 has directed its offices to focus on collection
of evidence on undisclosed income and not on obtaining
confession of undisclosed income and to make addition.
(3) We
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s
Lovely Exports 6 DTR 308 it has held if there is bogus
share holders and their name are appearing in books than
department is free to reopen individual assessment in
accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as
undisclosed income of the assessee company.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd on 19 March, 1986
The Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of CIT
vs. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC)
has held as under: "That in this case the respondent had
given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It
was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said
creditors were income-tax assessee's. Their index
numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue,
apart from issuing notice under section 131 at the
instance of the respondent, did not pursue the matter
further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income
of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they are
creditworthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so-
called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the
respondent could not do anything further. In the premises,
If the tribunal came to the conclusion that the Respondent
had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not
be said that such conclusion was unreasonable or
perverse or based on no evidence".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Steller Investment Ltd. on 20 July, 2000
CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/115
Taxman 99 (SC) where the Supreme Court held that even
if it was argued that the subscribers to the increased
capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could
the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed
income.