PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise.” It has been held that merely proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity or credit

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. P. MOHANAKALA

unexplained cash credit was the income of the assessees. In order to appreciate the contentions urged before us it would be appropriate to notice Section 68 of the Act which is re-produced: Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

unexplained investment in the property invoking the provisions of sec. 69 of the Act? (2) On the facts whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the part of the entries in the seized documents could be attributed to the applicant HUF when the applicant had denied the knowledge or ownership of the document?" The High Court answered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

investment in assessee company through paper companies remains unexplained. Besides, in the case of Trinetra Commerce & Trade(P) Ltd in [2016]75 taxmann.com 70(Calcutta) it was seen that assessee- company had received share capital from persons/entities whose identity, creditworthiness etc were not established. Addition u/s 68 was made been made in hands of assessee-company. Subsequent, one person

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR. vs. V.MOHAN AND ANR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Investment   in   the   firm   of   M/s   V.P.V. Prema Jewellery, Kumbakonam.  ­do­ 4. Jewellery   disclosed   under   Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (i.e.) 518 gms of gold and 28 ets. of diamond.” ­do­ 9. The   Competent   Authority   after   giving   opportunity   to   the respondent(s)   eventually   passed   separate   forfeiture   order(s)   on 30.4.1998 against Smt. V. Padmavathy, respondent No.2 and on 28.5.1998 against V. Mohan

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

unexplained profits and gains of the partners. It was thereafter that reassessment proceedings were initiated. First appellate authority i.e. CIT(A) not only affirmed the reassessment orders of the assessing officer but also enhanced the quantum of escaped income which was restored by the High Court after setting aside the reversal order of the Tribunal. 22.5. Learned counsel