Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.56 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Manish Kumar, Chennai vs Ito Ncw 5(3), Chennai on 11 January, 2019
Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC)
The jurisdictional HC while deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act held as follows:-
D.C.I.T Cc- Vii,Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Jaishree Commotrade Pvt Ltd, ... on 29 March, 2019
CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC)
The jurisdictional HC while deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act held as follows:-
Roshan-Di-Hatti vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 March, 1977
-The Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT (1992) in 2 SCC 378
held that if the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent
evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the
addition back to income of assessee.
Section 14 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 115JB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Pvs Builders & Developers on 24 October, 2016
CIT Vs. H.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) (HC)
In this case, order of CIT(A) deleting addition u/s 68 was upheld by Tribunal after finding
that assessee had submitted the accounts of return, computations of income, balance sheets
of the creditors and also supplied all their particulars to evidence that the money given to the
assessee had been shown in the respective balance sheets of the creditors and that the
creditors who were called by the AO did affirmed the fact of giving money and explained
the source of same. Tribunal also found that the circumstances of deposit of cash in the bank
accounts of some of the creditors before giving cheques to the company by itself, would not
lead to the conclusion that the money was deposited by the assessee company. Therefore, it
was held that there is no reason to enter into a factual inquiry so as to appreciate & evaluate
the evidence over again.
Ramdas Trading Company, Alwar vs Income Tax Officer-Tds, Alwar on 17 May, 2018
Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) (HC)
The jurisdictional HC while deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act held as follows:-
Sanraj Engg. Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax
-The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sanraj Engg. Pvt. Ltd vs CIT
(2016) TIOL-316-HC-DEL-IT held that Addition made u/s 68 on account
of unsecured loans was justified, where initial onus of proving the
creditworthiness of lenders was not discharged by the Assessee.