Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.57 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Victor Electodes Ltd on 12 May, 2010
Further in the case
of CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 it has been held that
there is no legal obligation on the assessee to produce some Director
or other representative of the Director or other representative of the
applicant companies before the A.O. Therefore, failure on part of the
assessee to produce the Directors of the share applicant companies
could not by itself have justified the additions made by the AO
particularly when the seven share applicant companies through
their present Directors have now again filed, fresh affidavits
confirming the application and allotment of shares with respect to
the total amount of Rs. 45 Lacs. It is observed that no attempt was
made by the AO to summon the Directors of the share applicant
companies. Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not
prove the "source of source". Accordingly, it was incumbent upon
the department to have enforced attendance of Shri Mahesh Garg
or the erstwhile Directors of the share applicant companies and
confronted them with the evidences & affidavits relied upon by the
appellant and thereupon given opportunity to the assessee to cross
examine these applicants".
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971
Ltd.
.367 ITR 306 has considered a large number of decisions
including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT Vs. Durga Prasad [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). According to the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court basically there are two sets of
judgments. In one set of case, the assessee produced necessary
documents/evidence to show and establish identity of the share-
holder and bank account from which payment was made. The fact
that payment was received through bank channels, filed
necessary affidavit of the shareholders or confinnations of the
directors of the shareholder company. But thereafter no further
inquiry was made by the AO. The second set of cases are those
where there was, evidence and material to show that the
shareholder company was only a paper company having no
source of income, but had made substantial and huge
investments in the form of share application money. The
assessing officer has referred to the bank statement, financial
8
ITA No. 220/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013)
&
ITA No. 221/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015)
Advent Vinimay Private Limited
position of the recipient and beneficiary assessee and
surrounding circumstances.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv vs Fair Finvest Ltd on 22 November, 2012
10. We also deem it appropriate to take note of some of
observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court from the deci sion
of Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra).
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 11 vs Rajesh Bajaj (D) Th. Lrs Smt. Sapna Bajaj on 3 November, 2017
16. On due consideration of the record, we find that this issue
is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Swati Bajaj [139
taxmann.com 352]. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this
appeal of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The Coinage Act, 2011
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Ramaniyam Castles P Ltd on 8 November, 2022
9. Let us take into consideration observations made by the;
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Softline Creations P. Ltd.
(supra) while taking note of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court
in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Delhi).
Hon'ble Delhi High Court: made following observations:
1