Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 1 of 5
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1-4 +
ITA 683/2015
PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing
Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing
counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advocate
versus
VIJAY CONDUCTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
With
ITA 684/2015
PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing
Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing
counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advocate
versus
NAMRATA MARKETING PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
With +
ITA 685/2015
PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing
Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing
counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advocate
versus
VISHRUT MARKETING PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:54:10
ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 2 of 5
And +
ITA 686/2015
PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing
Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing
counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advocate
versus
BERIWAL INVESTMENT & CHIT FUND
PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R %
29.09.2015
CM APP No. 18260 of 2015(exemption) in ITA No.683 of 2015 CM APP No. 18268 of 2015(exemption) in ITA No.684 of 2015 CM APP No. 18271 of 2015(exemption) in ITA No.685 of 2015 CM APP No. 18289 of 2015(exemption) in ITA No.686 of 2015
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
ITA No.683 of 2015 ITA No.684 of 2015 ITA No.685 of 2015 ITA No.686 of 2015
These appeals by the Revenue are directed against a common order dated 28th January 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:54:10
ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 3 of 5
for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 2008-09.
The common issue in all the appeals issues concerns the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act („Act‟) which was directed to be deleted by the ITAT.
A survey was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department under Section 133A of the Act in the office premises of one Mr. S.K. Gupta who was in the business of providing accommodation entries to various persons. During the survey, several documents, papers, laptops containing the accounts of several parties were impounded. An application was filed by Mr. Gupta before the Settlement Commission in which he admitted to carrying on the business of providing accommodation entries on which commission/brokerage was received by him.
The ITAT referred to the order dated 28th December 2010 of the Settlement Commission which records inter alia that Mr. Gupta was an entry provider and that in his case only the amount of premium/commission received by him after reducing expenses incurred would be his additional income. The order of the Settlement Commission also gave a list of the concerns controlled by Mr. Gupta which included the present Assessees. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:54:10
ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 4 of 5
These companies/entities were used by Mr. Gupta as conduit for issue of cheques to the beneficiaries.
The Assessing Officer (AO) gave effect to the order of the Settlement Commission and determined the income of Mr. S.K. Gupta without making any addition for unexplained cash credit. During the course of assessment Proceedings of the intermediary companies, including the Respondent Assessees, the AO sought directions from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 144-A. The Additional CIT passed an order in which after discussing the facts he inter alia directed that it would be in the best interest of the Revenue to tax these transactions in the hands of beneficiaries and Mr. S.K. Gupta “without making any additions on this account in the hands of conduit entities”. The said orders of the Settlement Commission or of the Additional CIT were binding on the AO.
It is not in dispute that the Respondent Assessees are the conduit entities and not the beneficiaries. Consequently, the order of the ITAT deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:54:10
ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 5 of 5
No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeals are dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 mg
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:54:10