Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.39 seconds)
Ito, Ward-32(4), Kolkata, Kolkata vs Shri Shaleen Khemani,, Kolkata on 18 October, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading ... on 22 June, 1972

It was similarly held by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. U. M. Shah (1973) 90 ITR 396. In the instant case, the declaration of the Donors was filed, and reply to notices issued to them too were taken on record. Since there was no material on record for doubting the veracity of such declaration and reply, any addition under section 68 cannot be sustained as it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehta Parekh & Co. v.CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC).
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 37 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Alpine Investments on 26 August, 2008

The AO was thus relying of irrelevant facts and circumstances to draw adverse inferences against the appellant. In the instant case, since the assessing officer could not adduce any legal evidence in countering the contention of the assessee or to prove that any of the documents as produced by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings were false or fabricated, he failed to establish his case and to discharge the requisite burden cast on him. In effect, the Assessing officer has based his conclusion on unfounded assumptions and surmises. It is relevant to rely on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Alpine Investment dated 26.08,2008 , in this case the shares were transacted through recognized stock brokers and through regular bank channel and supported by contract notes and bills. The stock broker also appeared and accepted the transactions to be genuine. The AO however relied solely on the statement of Shri Roopani at the time of search without taking cognizance of cross examination and documents produced and disallowed the loss treating it to be bogus. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance which was deleted by the tribunal. While dismissing the revenue's appeal u/s 260A the Calcutta High Court observed as "It appears that the share loss and the whole transactions were supported by contract notes, bills and were carried through recognized stock broker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and all the payments made to the stock broker and all the payments received from stock broker through account payee instruments, which were also filed in accordance with the assessment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

D.C.I.T Cc - Vii,Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Anand Nirman Pvt Ltd., Kolkata on 12 July, 2017

In such a situation, it cannot be presumed that there could be any transfer of cash between the buyers and sellers to convert the unaccounted money of the beneficiaries as alleged by the ld AO. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bom) to contend that there was no evidence whatsoever to allege that money changed hands between the assessee and the broker or any other person including the alleged exit provider whatsoever to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG as alleged. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another , addition cannot be sustained. Similar view was taken in the following cases:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next