Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Acit, Bhilai vs Shri Jaibaba Castings Pvt Ltd, Jarway, ... on 5 September, 2024 cites

Acit, Central Circle- 6 , New Delhi vs Anil Aggarwal , Ghaziabad on 28 August, 2019

ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 7.2 On the other hand, the ld. AR has submitted that the loan was taken in preceding year, and it was appearing as opening balance in the account of "UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd." as the name of company was changed from "Prism Fincorp Pvt. Ltd." to "Udit Infratech Pvt. Ltd.". There was just transfer of balance from one account to another accounts due to change in name of the lender company, there was no new loan availed by the assessee company during the relevant year, therefore, such additions u/s 68 of the Act is without any logical basis. The relevant documents regarding change of name to "UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd" from "M/s Prism Fincorp Pvt. Ltd." and other financial documents supporting such contention are placed before us at page No. 76 to 107. Based on the aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer of the ld. AR that this addition u/s 68 of the Act made by the ld. AO was in the wrong appreciation of facts and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Apcom Computers (P) Ltd on 17 October, 2006

12.5 In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, wherein the addition was made because of difference in stock statement furnished before the bank as compared to position of stock in the books of assessee. The assessee tried to explain the reasons for such variations by way of furnishing reconciliation statement before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue referring to judgments by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apcom Computers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 630 (Madaras HC), and similar judgments by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred to supra. As per all the aforesaid judgments the stock statements furnished before the bank for availing higher credit limits cannot be the basis for addition on account of undisclosed investment u/s 69B. In the present case, as the difference detected by the Ld. AO between stock statement furnished before the bank and regular books of accounts of the assessee could not be further established as actual variation on the basis of any cogent evidence, therefore, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) based on judgments of Hon'ble High Courts has the essence to sustain, we accordingly uphold the same.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 47 - P P Raja - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 Mumbai vs Enam Securities P. Ltd . on 1 September, 2014

7.4 Reliance is placed in the case of CIT Vs. Enam Securities (P.) Ltd. reported in [2012] 345 ITR 64 (Bom), wherein, it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that, "Whether since there was no remission or cessation of liability in question during current assessment year, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted." Also, in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt Ltd reported in [236 ITR 518 (SC)], Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Expiry of period of limitation cannot extinguish the debt
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next