Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Section 10 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Jaipur vs Smt Pooja Agarwal on 11 September, 2017
Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal in the said case has analyzed an
identical issue wherein the shares allotted in the private placement @
Rs. 10 at par of face value which were dematerialized and thereafter
sold by the assessee and accordingly the Tribunal after placing reliance
on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE vs. Andaman
Timber Industries (supra) as well as the decision of Hon'ble jurisdiction
High court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal (supra) as held that
when the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to
show that the assessee has paid over and above purchase consideration
as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of
any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his
own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain.
Similar in the case in hand the assessee has produced the relevant
record to show the allotment of shares by the company on payment of
consideration by cheque and therefore, it is not a case of payment of
consideration by in cash.
Collector Of Customs & Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Oriental Timber Industries on 26 March, 1985
Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal in the said case has analyzed an
identical issue wherein the shares allotted in the private placement @
Rs. 10 at par of face value which were dematerialized and thereafter
sold by the assessee and accordingly the Tribunal after placing reliance
on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE vs. Andaman
Timber Industries (supra) as well as the decision of Hon'ble jurisdiction
High court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal (supra) as held that
when the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to
show that the assessee has paid over and above purchase consideration
as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of
any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his
own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain.
Similar in the case in hand the assessee has produced the relevant
record to show the allotment of shares by the company on payment of
consideration by cheque and therefore, it is not a case of payment of
consideration by in cash.
Nisha Jain, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 31 January, 2018
The
Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Pramod Jain and Others vs.
DCIT (supra) whole dealing with an identical issue as held in para 6 to 8
as uder:-
Vimalchand Jain vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 April, 1997
The decisions replied upon the ld. DR in case of Sanjay
Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the
present case as the said decision is in respect penny stock purchase by
the assessee from a persons who was found to be indulged in providing
bogus capital gain entries whereas in the case of the assessee the
shares were allotted to the assessee by the company at par of face
value.
Gtc Industries Ltd ( Presently Known As ... vs Acit Cir 8(1) , Mumbai on 15 February, 2017
Therefore, the statement of witness cannot be sole basis of the
assessment without given an opportunity of cross examination
and consequently it is a serious flaw which renders the order a
nullity. The Mumbai Special of the Tribunal in case of GTC
Industries vs. ACIT (supra) had the occasion to consider the
addition made by the AO on the basis of suspicion and surmises
and observed in par 46 as under:-