Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.65 seconds)Section 69C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs M/S. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. on 2 August, 2010
d) Rajat Capital Market Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014) 24 ITJ 219
(Indore)
The appellant discharged the burden casted upon him and he was
not required to prove source of source of loan received from M/s. K
& Co. as held in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investments P.
Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi HC) as under :-
C.I.T,Chennai vs G.Baiju,Dir. Sh.Gokulum Chit & ... on 29 October, 2014
The amount of loan was treated as unexplained u/s. 68 of the IT
Act in Bank statement of M/s.. K & Co. with HDFC bank, because
there was a credit of Rs. 3,00,000/- through the transfer from an
a/c No. 2592020001009 and cash was deposited by the lender in
its bank account before advancing the loan.
According to AO. identity of creditor was established but the
genuineness of said transaction was doubtful and
creditworthiness of the said party was not established. He relied
Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. -: 18 :-
upon the judgment of MP High Court in the case of CIT vs Rathi Fin
lease Limited ___(MP). In that case, the creditor was not exist and
its identity was not proved hence it is distinguishable from the
facts of the appellant.
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs Astt. Cit on 2 August, 2005
c) Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd Vs. CIT (2006) 283 ITR 377
(Rajsthan)
The Acit, 1(2), Indore vs M/S Premium Capital Market & Investment ... on 24 April, 2018
d) Rajat Capital Market Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014) 24 ITJ 219
(Indore)
The appellant discharged the burden casted upon him and he was
not required to prove source of source of loan received from M/s. K
& Co. as held in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investments P.
Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi HC) as under :-
1