Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd on 15 February, 2012
Mere fact that
the payment was received by cheque or that the
applicants were companies, borne on the file of
Registrar of Companies were held to be neutral facts
and did not prove that the transaction was genuine as
was held in the case of CIT - Vs - Nova Promoters and
Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. on 14 June, 1993
We may however
point out that the Special Bench of Delhi High Court in
the case of Sophia Finance Ltd. (supra) held that "the
ITO may even be justified in trying to ascertain the
source of depositor". Therefor, the submission that the
source of source is not a relevant enquiry does not
appear to be correct. We find no substance in the
submission that the exercise of power under Section
263 by the Commissioner was an act of reactivating
state issues."
M/S. Sneh Enterprises vs Commnr. Of Customs, New Delhi on 8 September, 2006
(supra), and the learned counsel for the parties have also
confined their submissions to points of law only. The capital
receipts in respect of which inquiries have been ordered by the
C.I.T. have similar features, being fresh share capital issued at
high premium. Mr. Majumdar, however, drew his strength to
urge the point that it was only after the aforesaid amendments
such inquiries would have relevance. He sought to take cue from
the observation of the Coordinate Bench that the question as to
whether proviso to Section 68 of Income Tax Act is retrospective
in nature or not was being kept open. He also cited the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sneh Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (2006) 7 SCC 714] to contend that a
judgement is the authority on the proposition which it decides
and not what can logically be deduced from, and sought to
distinguish the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Ltd. (supra),
on that basis. Submission of the appellants is that the points of
law urged in these appeals were not raised before the Coordinate
Bench. Main argument of the appellants before us has been that
the amendment to Section 68 does not have retrospective
operation.
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited on 7 May, 2018
15. Arguments in all these appeals have been advanced in the
same line, and for that reason we have not recorded in this
judgement the submissions made individually in each appeal.
Another decision of a Coordinate Bench in ITA No.723 of
2008 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II,
Kolkata Vs. Shyam Sel Ltd. Decided on 28th June 2016 was
8
referred to on behalf of the appellants. This decision was cited to
contend that the assessee cannot be asked to discharge the onus
or proving the genuineness of transaction relating to the source
of its source of share application.
Finance Act, 2012
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commr.Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Vatika Township Pvt.Ltd. on 29 October, 2014
"We are unable to accept the submission that
any further investigation is futile because the money
was received ono capital account. The Special Bench in
the case of Sophia Finance Ltd. (supra) opined that
"the use of the words "any sum found credited in the
books" in Section 68 indicates that the said section is
very widely worded and an Income-Tax Officer is not
precluded from making an enquiry as to the true
nature and source thereof even if the same is credited
as receipt of share application money.