Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Maf Academy P. Ltd. on 28 November, 2013
In fact, they substantially relied upon and quoted the decision
of its co-ordinate Bench in the case of MAF Academy P. Ltd., a decision
which has been overturned by the Delhi High Court, vide its judgment
in CIT v. MAF Academy P. Ltd. [2014] 206 DLT 277 ; [2014] 361 ITR
258 (Delhi)). In the impugned order it is accepted that the assessee
was unable to produce directors and principal officers of the six
shareholder companies and also the fact that as per the information
and details collected by the Assessing Officer from the concerned bank,
the Assessing Officer has observed that there were genuine concerns
15 ITA No. 3103/Del/2015
Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd on 15 February, 2012
12. The application of the ratio of every decision by a quasi-judicial
body like the IT AT has to be nuanced, and contextual. Thus, while
the findings in Divine Leasing, Oasis International or even Lovely
Exports might be preceded by a general discussion of the correct
approach to be adopted by the AO, in a given case where additions
are sought to be made on account of share application moneys not
found to be genuine, the basic facts of the case cannot be lost sight
of. On a proper application of the ratio in Oasis - and subsequently,
the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd
[2012] 206 Taxman 207/ 18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) it is evident
that the AO took into account - if we may say so, in exhaustive detail,
after a painstaking examination of the records after two or three
layers of scrutiny- all the materials and held that the claim that the
amounts claimed to be received on account of share applications were
not based on genuine transactions. The CIT (A) upheld that order,
after calling for a remand report. In these circumstances, the
conclusion of the Tribunal, that the assessee had discharged its onus,
appears to be based on a superficial understanding of the law, and an
uninformed one about the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
10. DRB Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 490
(Calcutta) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that where AO made addition
under section 68 in respect of increase in share capital of assessee-
company, in view of fact that addresses of most of purported
shareholders were identical and they could not be traced out despite
notice issued under section 131, Tribunal was justified in confirming
impugned addition.
M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 14 July, 2017
Konark Structural Engineering (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2018] 90
taxmann.com 56 (Bombay) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that where assessee-company
received certain amount as share capital from various shareholders, in
view of fact that summons served to shareholders under section 131
were unserved with remark that addressees were not available, and,
moreover, those shareholders were first time assessees and were not
earning enough income to make deposits in question, impugned
addition made by AO under sec. 68, was to be confirmed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971
In Commissioner
of Income-Tax, West Bengal II v. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540
Hegde J. speaking for the Supreme Court observed as unde": -
Rick Lunsford Trade And Investment Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1 on 21 November, 2016
20. Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd Vs CIT [2016-TIOL-207-SC-
IT](Supreme Court) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP upholding that it is open
to the Revenue Department to make addition on account of alleged
share capital u/s 68, where the assessee company has failed to show
genuineness of its shareholders."
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Navodaya Castles Pvt Ltd. on 25 August, 2014
6. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd T20141 367 ITR 306 (Del) (Copy
Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court accepted that since the assessee was
unable to produce the directors and the principal officers of the six
shareholder companies and also that as per the information and details
collected by the Assessing Officer from the concerned bank, the
Assessing Officer had observed that there were genuine concerns about
identity, creditworthiness of shareholders as well as genuineness of the
transactions.
Cit vs Ultra Modern Exports Pvt. Ltd. on 11 December, 2012
13. CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd (40 taxmann.com 458, 220
Taxman 165) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where in order to ascertain
genuineness of assessee's claim relating to receipt of share application
money, Assessing Officer sent notices to share applicants which
returned unserved, however, assessee still managed to secure
documents such as their income tax returns as well as bank account
particulars, in such circumstances, Assessing Officer was justified in
drawing adverse inference and adding amount in question to assessee's
taxable income under section 68. It was held as follows: