Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs M/S Jansampark Advertising And ... on 11 March, 2015

21. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Through this ground assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,99,500/- as unexplained cash credit. We observe that the amount of Rs.1,99,500/- includes unsecured loan each less than Rs.20,000/- taken in cash and assessee was unable to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness before ld. Assessing Officer. As a result, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. We further observe that assessee has placed on record copies of PAN and other identity proofs in the paper book along with confirmation copies to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the depositors. We further observe that assessee ITA No. 1355/Ahd/2012 15 Asst. Year 2007-08 has referred and relied on various judgments. However, in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd (supra) the issue relating to raising of share capital and is, therefore not relevant to the facts of the case before as the facts are different.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 286 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd on 19 March, 1986

19. Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd on 19 March, 1986 AIR 1849, 1986 SCR (1) 979, (Pg.125-131, PB-II) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, " (ii) The conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the instant case, that the asses see had discharged the burden that lay on him could not be said to be unreasonable, or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which it could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 585 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1