Shiv Nandan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) In the present case the Hon’ble High Court have deleted the addition on account of a notional income when advances were made without charging of any interest.
Tribunal examined two main issues in this case firstly, whether any addition is required to be made in the hands of assessee on account of unexplained investment in purchase of house property. Secondly, whether assessees have paid any amount over and above the consideration shown in the sale deed
The court has dealt with two issues in this case. Firstly, whether Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by AO on account of claim made by the assessee towards cost paid to Hindustan Lever Ltd. for salary of Managers, Officers on deputation.
Once assessee has submitted documents related to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction the onus of proving share application as bogus shifts on the revenue. If revenue fails to prove further then assessee connote be treated as bogus.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the Section 86(2) does not state as to the manner in which Committee of Commissioners have to arrive at a decision as to whether an appeal should be preferred against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. held that the Joint Venture was not an Association of Persons and could not be taxed on that basis, where the JV was formed only to secure the contract
The Delhi High Court in the case of held CIT vs. M/s. DD Industries Ltd. that when the assessee is possessed of mixed funds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity, a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Jain Export Private Ltd. held that, to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), it requires proper investigation and higher satisfaction of proof, which confirmed the basis for the initiation of necessary proceedings.
Delhi High court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. held that the admission of assessee under Section 132(4) where he admitted about the possession of incriminating material would suffice to initiate the necessary proceedings.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High Court held that notice could not be served to transferor company after the Amalgamation have been done. As, it will be contrary to law to serve the notice to a non-existing company.
