Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)The Advocates Act, 1961
Section 46A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xi vs Rama Krishna Jewellers on 26 September, 2014
CIT V. Rama Krishna Jewellers [2014] 52 taxmann.com 23/368 ITR 588 (Delhi)
Various additions were made under section 68 for relevant years as confirmations, bank
account statements, and income-tax returns of persons who had given unsecured loans and
cash credits to the assessee were not brought on record. The assessee, before the
Commissioner (Appeals), had filed several details including their PAN, bank statements and
income-tax returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted additions being based on no
material.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. on 22 January, 1976
CIT V. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. [2010] 322ITR 394 (Bom.) H.C. Where in the
books of account produced by creditors corresponding entries of alleged cash credits were
found and, hence, addition on account of cash credits was deleted;
Assam Forest Products (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 November, 1994
Fort Projects (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 29 taxmann.com 84/[2012] 145 TTJ 340
(Kol.) ITAT During relevant assessment year, the assessee company received certain sum as
loan from company 'T'. The Assessing Officer alleged that the said company was a typical
entry company and, therefore, the loan received by assessee was bogus. The Assessing
Officer, thus, treated said sum as income of the assessee-company from undisclosed sources.
On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition by observing that Assessing
Officer had not proved that 'T' was a typical entry company with supporting evidences and no
specific finding in respect of documentary evidence furnished by the assessee in support of
identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was given.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bakliwal Finvest Pvt. Ltd on 22 December, 2010
CIT V. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 45 taxmann.com 203/224 Taxman 87
(Mag.)/267 CTR 396/366 ITR 217 (Raj.)
Unsecured loan raised by the assessee from relatives was added in income of the
assessee on ground that none of creditors was able to prove source of amount advanced to the
assessee and immediately before grant of loan by them cash was deposited in their accounts.
However, it was admitted by the Assessing Officer that all creditors were assessed to Income-
tax and they had provided confirmation as well as their PAN. Moreover, all payments were
through account payee cheques.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ashok Match Industries (B-Unit), ... on 25 March, 1998
In the case of Prabhawati Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 and in case of CIT Vs. K. Ravindran 265 ITR 217
that the implications of the word 'entitled' in rule 46A are that (i) the appellant has a right to
produce additional evidence in the circumstances specified in the rule, and (ii) the appellant
may be permitted to produce additional evidence in a fit case which falls outside the specified
circumstances. The rule further provides that the CIT (A) shall not admit additional evidences
unless he has recorded his reason for admitting it, and that he shall not take into account such
evidence, unless the A.O. has been allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine it and to
produce evidence in rebuttal thereof. The rule specifically provides that nothing contained in it
shall affect the power of the CIT (A) to direct the production of any document, or the
examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal; he should exercise this
power judicially and should make enquiry where facts so demand. It will be noticed from
appeal order that the Ld. CIT (A) has completely followed the said law and required procedure
while admitting additional evidences filed by assessee company u/r 46A and hence the same is
correct in law.
Renu Agarwal, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 14 February, 2017
The assessee firm submits that it has submitted confirmation with complete address
& P.A. No. from all loan creditors and other supporting documents such as copy of PAN card,
ITR acknowledgement, copy of Balance Sheet etc. and loans were received through account
payee cheques and so genuineness of transaction are proved and the credits are satisfactorily
explained. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mangilal Agarwal v/s ACIT 300 ITR
372 has held that once assessee point out depositor from whom he has received money who
has owned advancement of money to the assessee then the further enquiry into source cannot
result in invoking provisions of S.68 of I.T. Act unless the existence of the person in whose
name credit entry is found is not proved or he disowns having made such deposit. But once
creditor is proved and existing as well as he admits having lent the money, money cannot be
considered as assessee's income unless the revenue established by some evidence that it really
followed directly from assessee himself.