Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.13 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 2012
Section 40 in Finance Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Nra Iron And Steel Pvt. Ltd. Through ... on 5 March, 2019
16. It may be reiterated that in the case before us, despite the availability
of banking facilities to the two investors, they invested cash of Rs. 22 lakh
17
ITA No. 753/Del/2017
and Rs. 14 lakh towards purchase of share capital /premium of the closely
held company directors of which were their relatives. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and following the decision in NRA Iron & Steel (P)
Ltd. (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we uphold the impugned order of
the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground No. 2 of the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, New ... vs Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. on 16 September, 2014
11.3 For the reasons aforesaid the Ld. AO/CIT(A) did not accept the
contention raised by the assessee that the genuineness and
creditworthiness of the two investors were established. The Ld. CIT(A)
referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Focus
Exports Pvt. Ltd. 228 Taxman 88 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court advised caution where self serving statements have been relied upon
by an assessee and no lucid reasonable and acceptable explanation is
offered by the assessee regarding the nature and source of credit entry in its
books. We are of the considered view that the assessee's case before us falls
in this category. We cannot be oblivious of the glaring fact that we are
dealing with a case where the assessee is a private limited company of real
estate developers and the two investor creditors are relatives of its directors.
In case of such a type more heavy burden lies upon the assessee to prove
the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction which in our
humble opinion the assessee failed to discharge.
M/S Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-I on 6 February, 2007
In the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 83/159m Taxman 155 (SC)
(a Bench comprising of two Hon'ble Judges) it was held that prior to the amendment with
effect from 1st April, 2003 penalty for concealment of income could not be levied in the
absence of any positive income. Doubt was expressed over the correctness of this view by a
subsequent Bench. Thereafter in the case of Gold Coin Health Food (P.)
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs The Khatau Makanji Spinning Andweaving ... on 4 May, 1960
Similarly in
the case of Kanji Shivji & Co. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the purpose of
10
ITA No. 753/Del/2017
Explanation 2 to section 40(b) was simply to clarify that the Income-tax Act recognizes
individual status of a person as different from his representative capacity. This Explanation
did not bring in a new provision but clarified that the position was so since the introduction of
the provision itself. In this class of clarificatory or explanatory amendments to the substantive
provisions, the object is always to clarify the intention of the legislature as it was there at the
time of Insertion of the original provision. That is the reason for which the clarificatory
amendments are always retrospective irrespective of the date from which effect has been
given to them by the legislature.
M/S Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Amritsar on 10 December, 1996
In this case Explanation 2 to section 40(b) has
been held as declaratory and hence retrospective in operation by affirming the judgments in
the cases of Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das (supra) and Suwalal Anandilal Jain (supra).