Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs Dy Cit-Cc-7(3), Mumbai on 28 April, 2022 cites

M/S Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, ... vs Dcit Central Range 7(3), Mumbai on 4 June, 2021

8. The matter of controversy basically has been adjudicated in the assessee's own case for the A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 mentioned above. Anyhow, three necessary ingredients is liable to be proved on behalf of the assessee i.e. Identity of the shareholder, Genuineness of the transaction & Credit worthiness of the shareholder. The assessee has given the address, PAN, certificate of incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association of the above subscriber who have subscribed to the shares. To prove the creditworthiness of the subscribers, the appellant has submitted the certificate of source of fund, balance-sheet, Profit & Loss A/c and Return of income of share applicants. To prove the Genuineness of above share transaction, appellant has submitted, Copy of Cheque, Copy of Cheque Deposit Slip, Copy of Bank Statement of M/s. Moongipa, Copy of Share Certificate Counterfoil, Copy of Extract of Minutes of BOD Meeting, Copy of source of Funds Certificate, Copy of ITR Acknowledgement, Copy of Audit Report along with Balance-Sheet, Copy of Certificate of Incorporation, Copy of Memorandum & Articles of Association & Company Master Data showing status active. The facts of the present case are quite identical to the facts of the assessee's own case and other sister concern cases i.e. M/s. Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Range-7(3). ITA.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995

8.5 The Ld. DR has relied upon the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (80 Taxman 89) & Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540 26/08/1971). No doubt that the revenue authorities were not required to put blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the documents produced before them. However, we find that no such inquiries have been made by the 14 ITA No. 1321/Mum/2021 A.Y.2009-10 authorities except for the allegations that the share capital was bogus in nature. Nothing was brought on record that to substantiate the fact that the assessee's unaccounted money was routed in the books in the garb of share capital.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1298 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

M/S Moongipa Development & ... vs Dcit Central Range 7(3), Mumbai on 3 May, 2021

No.627/Mum/2019 & M/s. Moongipa Development and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Range-7(3). ITA. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019. Since the case is duly covered by the decision of the assessee's own case as 16 ITA No. 1321/Mum/2021 A.Y.2009-10 well as sister concern and the facts are quite similar to the facts of the present case also, therefore, we are of the view that the addition is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we delete the addition and decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next