Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Income Tax Officer, Ward 11 (4) , New Delhi Versus M/s Integrated Infosoft Pvt. Ltd. and Vica-versa

Addition u/s 68 on account of alleged bogus accommodation entries - CIT(A) deleted the additions - whether the assessee company had discharged its onus that is lying upon it in terms of the provisions of Section 68 or not? - Held that:- A perusal of the assessment, reveals that the assessee company failed to discharge the initial onus that was lying upon it in terms of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act as he failed to furnish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the guise of subscription and share capital consideration in the form of commission, the assessee company had not discharged its initial onus lying upon it, nor rebutted the report of Investigation Wing. Further, we find from the order of the CIT(A) that certain additional evidences/details were filed by way of paper book and there is nothing on record to show that the requirements of the provisions of Section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 had been complied with by the ld. CIT(A). In the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ge of initiation of the reassessment proceedings, there need not be conclusive finding on fact against the assessee, only requirement is reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer. See Sowdagar Ahmed Khan Vs. ITO, (1967 (11) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court); Brij Mohan Aggarwal Vs. ACIT (2004 (4) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD High Court); & Praful Chunila Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel Vs. Asstt. CIT, (1998 (2) TMI 538 - GUJARAT High Court ). - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 6145/Del/2013, C.O. No. 134/Del/2014 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law was CIT(A) justified in deleting an addition of ₹ 20,02,030/- made u/s 68 on account of alleged bogus accommodation entries received from M/s Garg Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shekhawati Finance Pvt. Ltd. ii. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y Software (P.) Ltd., issued notice under Section 148 of the act dated 17th March, 2011. In response to this notice, the assessee company submitted that the original return of income may be treated as return in response to the notice u/s 148. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the respondent asessee company was called upon to produce the proof of shares allotted to M/s Garg Finvest (P) Ltd. and M/s Sekhawati Finance (P.) Ltd. and copies of ITR filed by those companies and bank statem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd held that there were no credits in the name of those two companies. The relevant paragraphs i.e. para 5.5 is reproduced below: 5.5 From the reply, it is apparent that in the account books of the appellant Company, there is amount of ₹ 20 lacs received vide 2 cheques as share application money received from B.T. Technet Ltd. Thus, in the books of the Appellant Company there are no credits in the account of Garg Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and shekhawati Finance Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, detailed c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s with the present appeal. 3. Before us, learned Sr. DR vehemently argued that the assessee company had failed to discharge the primary onus lying upon him in terms of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition without examining the details. 4. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representation placed reliance on the order of CIT(A). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in appeal is whether t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that there were no credit in the nature of M/s Garg Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Shekhawati Finance Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) fell in error by holding that the provisions of Section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is undisputed fact that the share application money had been received for M/s Garg Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shekhawati Finance Pvt. Ltd. who are alleged to be the accommodation entry providers. Having regard to the modus operandi of accommodation en .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version