Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.30 seconds)
Acit Central , Ujjain vs M/S Raaj Medisafe India Ltd, Dhar on 7 February, 2022 cites

M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015

The ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Metachem Industries (supra) to the effect that the law 20 M/s Raaj Medisafe India Limited, Dhar & Mangala Bangur IT(SS)ANo.117/Ind/2020 & others does not cast any obligation on the assessee to explain the source of the source for the amount borrowed. At para (4.3.3) on page no. 93 to 95, the ld. CIT(A) has referred to the case laws relied upon by the AO and has stated that none of these case laws are applicable to the case of the assessee. At para (4.3.4), the ld. CIT(A) has stated that the AO except relying upon the findings of Investigation Wing, could not bring any cogent material to establish that the lender companies were non-existent or bogus or paper companies. According to the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has fully discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of loan transactions and the identity & creditworthiness of the loan creditors have also been established beyond all doubts. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the identity of the lender companies is self proven from the fact the assessments in the case of the lender companies have been framed either by the AO himself or by some other officer. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that non compliance of the commission issued at a wrong address cannot be viewed adversely for adjudging the identity of the lender companies specially in a situation where the statements of the directors of lender companies were duly recorded by the Investigation Wing itself. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the genuineness of the transactions also gets fully established as the transactions have taken place through banking channels and these have been confirmed by the lender companies. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the lender companies were having sufficient net owned funds for making advances to the appellant or anyone also. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had been able to establish even the source of the sources in the hands of the lender companies and all the lender companies are also assessed to Income Tax. Further, the ld. CIT(A) also stated that in none of the transaction, cash has been found deposited in bank account of lenders. Furthermore, during the survey proceeding, no incriminating material or any other evidence was found from which it could have been inferred that the assessee had provided any fund to the lender companies before obtaining loans. Finally, at para (4.3.5), the ld. CIT(A), keeping in view the facts of the case, the documentary evidences filed and the case laws relied upon by the assessee, held that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.12,44,12,690/- on account of unsecured loans taken by the assessee from the lender companies.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 602 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next