137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/

194 ITD 396Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2022#12338 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 133(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

nav methoddcf methodstrategic investmentsection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharessection 251(1)commercial expediencysection 56(2)share application moneyfair market valuelimited scrutinysection 56

Judgments citing 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 91/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] M/s Dreamtech Vs. DCIT • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 15. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases in hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), deta…

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 90/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] M/s Dreamtech Vs. DCIT • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 15. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases in hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), deta…

Manhar Yarns Private Limited, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 97/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…• Principal of Income Tax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 14. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases at hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), detail…

Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…• Principal of Income Tax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 16. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases at hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), detail…

Nelumbo Paints Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Haryana

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…• Principal of Income Tax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 14. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases at hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), detail…

Abhi Soaps Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 79/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…• Principal of Income Tax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 15. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases at hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), detail…

Movefast Automobiles Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 101/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…• Principal of Income Tax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 14. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases at hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), detail…

Madhava Home Decor Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…• Principal of Income Tax v Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar (Rajasthan HC )/[2022] 441 ITR 632 138 taxmann.com 103 (Rajasthan)/[2022] 441 ITR 632 (Rajasthan)[15-ll-2021] • [2022] 137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/[2022] 194 ITD 396. • 10 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Rohtak Chain Co. 59 (SC) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)/[2019]266 Taxman 459 /(SC)[05-08-2019] 16. Applying the above judicial principles to the cases at hand, since the Assessee herein filed detailed documentary evidences in the form of duly signed confirmation of investors/lenders (parties), detail…

137 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gandhi Capital (P.) Ltd. 75 (Surat-Trib.)/ (194 ITD 396) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax