357 ITR 147 and PCIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd.

397 ITR 106High Court2017#2194 most cited

What is 357 ITR 147 and PCIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot ignore comprehensive documentary evidence submitted by an assessee to establish the genuineness of transactions, especially concerning share application money. Such evidence, including PAN details, assessment particulars, bank statements, and cheque numbers, requires due consideration beyond mere confirmation letters.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. · Section 68 · share application money · genuineness of transactions · documentary evidence · Assessing Officer duty · cash credits · burden of proof · AO cannot ignore evidence · identity creditworthiness genuineness

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(2)Section 148Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 145(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

cash found during searchjewellery found during searchinterest u/s 234csection 271aabunexplained jewellerysource of sourcesummons under section 131paper companypreponderance of probabilityaccumulated profitsbogus long term capital gainsection 158bb

Judgments citing 357 ITR 147 and PCIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd.

M/S. SOUTH WEST PINNACLE EXPLORATION LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (PAN : AAKCS3608R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Lear…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10-3, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. GRAPE MARKETING PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3555/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148

…e the directors. The ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: • CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 315(SC) • CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del) • Pr. CIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., [2017] 397 ITR 106 (Del) • CIT v.Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd, ITA 71/2015, ITA 72/2015, ITA 84/2015 (del) • CIT Vs M/s Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 778 of 2015 Dated 13- 10- 2015] (del) • PCIT vs. Softline Creations Pvt. Ltd (2016) 387 ITR 636 (Del) • Vedic Foundation Private Limited vs. ITO, ITA 9170/Del/2019, dated 25.01.2024 13. The ld. counsel for the as…

SUNITA SARDA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 71(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…ng on the report of the Investigation Wing and thereby made the addition, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law." (Emphasis Supplied) 23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken a similar view in the case of PCIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 106 (DEL) whereby it has been held that all documentary evidences submitted by the Assessee establishing genuineness of transactions cannot be ignored by the Ld. AO: "This Court notices that the assessee had provided several documents that could have showed light into whether truly the transactions were genuine. It was not a case where the share appl…

GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTRE INDIA PVT LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, 1(1) , GURUGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…ng on the report of the Investigation Wing and thereby made the addition, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law." (Emphasis Supplied) 23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken a similar view in the case of PCIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 106 (DEL) whereby it has been held that all documentary evidences submitted by the Assessee establishing genuineness of transactions cannot be ignored by the Ld. AO: "This Court notices that the assessee had provided several documents that could have showed light into whether truly the transactions were genuine. It was not a case where the share appl…

LATE SHRI HAJI MOHD. DILSHAD THROUGH L/H. SHRI DILNAWAZ & MRS. MEHRUNISSA,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3555/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148

…e the directors. The ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: • CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 315(SC) • CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del) • Pr. CIT v. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., [2017] 397 ITR 106 (Del) • CIT v.Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd, ITA 71/2015, ITA 72/2015, ITA 84/2015 (del) • CIT Vs M/s Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 778 of 2015 Dated 13- 10- 2015] (del) • PCIT vs. Softline Creations Pvt. Ltd (2016) 387 ITR 636 (Del) • Vedic Foundation Private Limited vs. ITO, ITA 9170/Del/2019, dated 25.01.2024 13. The ld. counsel for the as…

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…xman 75 115-120 14. Copy of decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Supertech Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 229 Taxman 62 121-125 15. Copy of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 106 126-129 16. Copy of decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of M/s Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO(E) ITA No.566 & 567/JP/2018 order dt. 30.01.2019 130-147 17. Copy of decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in case of DCIT & Ors. Vs. Acro Exports Trade Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 56 CCH 446 148-174 7. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition to th…

SARIKA TYAGI,GHAZIBAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZAIBAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1414/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…ere the necessary documents are furnished by the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO cannot make the addition without making inquiries :- -CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 106 -CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. -CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 -CIT v Fair Finvest Ltd [2014] 44 Taxmann.com 356 -CIT v Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 30 Taxman.com 328 (Delhi) -Pr. CIT v Oriental International Company Pvt. Ltd. 2018 101 CCH 0004 Del 7. Looking into factual matrix of the case and after careful analysi…

YOGENDER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…ere the necessary documents are furnished by the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO cannot make the addition without making inquiries :- -CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 106 -CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. -CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 -CIT v Fair Finvest Ltd [2014] 44 Taxmann.com 356 -CIT v Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 30 Taxman.com 328 (Delhi) -Pr. CIT v Oriental International Company Pvt. Ltd. 2018 101 CCH 0004 Del 7. Looking into factual matrix of the case and after careful analysi…

NAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1412/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…ere the necessary documents are furnished by the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO cannot make the addition without making inquiries :- -CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 106 -CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. -CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 -CIT v Fair Finvest Ltd [2014] 44 Taxmann.com 356 -CIT v Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 30 Taxman.com 328 (Delhi) -Pr. CIT v Oriental International Company Pvt. Ltd. 2018 101 CCH 0004 Del 7. Looking into factual matrix of the case and after careful analysi…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. YOGENDER SINGH , GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…ere the necessary documents are furnished by the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO cannot make the addition without making inquiries :- -CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 106 -CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. -CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 -CIT v Fair Finvest Ltd [2014] 44 Taxmann.com 356 -CIT v Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 30 Taxman.com 328 (Delhi) -Pr. CIT v Oriental International Company Pvt. Ltd. 2018 101 CCH 0004 Del 7. Looking into factual matrix of the case and after careful analysi…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUSHIL TYAGI, DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1386/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…ere the necessary documents are furnished by the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO cannot make the addition without making inquiries :- -CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 106 -CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. -CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 -CIT v Fair Finvest Ltd [2014] 44 Taxmann.com 356 -CIT v Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 30 Taxman.com 328 (Delhi) -Pr. CIT v Oriental International Company Pvt. Ltd. 2018 101 CCH 0004 Del 7. Looking into factual matrix of the case and after careful analysi…

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…Ltd (2017) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) iv)CIT vs. Insecticides (I) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.) v)Durga Prasad Goyal Vs. ITO (2006) 98 ITD 227 (Asr)(SB), vi) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) vii) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources (2017) 397 ITR 106 (Del) HELD “Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for him to have simply concluded that it was evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation entries. The basic jurisdictional requirement was application of mind by the assessing of…

ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…permissible. Voluminous documents produced by the assessee cannot be discarded merely on the basis of statements of individuals contrary to such public documents. 10.8. Reliance further placed on CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) (2017) 397 ITR 106 wherein it has been held that the fact that the investigation wing's report alleged that the assessee was beneficiary to bogus transactions and that the identity of shareholders, genuineness etc was suspect is not sufficient. The AO is bound to conduct scrutiny of documents produced by the assessee and cannot rest content by placing reliance on t…

SNR ELECTRONICS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

…on records, which may justify the instant reopening action u/s 143 of the Act. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the ratio laid in the cases of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 5, CIT Vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 106, CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matter Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 778 of 2015, CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. General Exports and Credits Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268, CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136. 14. That the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of doubt and should be deleted as the same is based on surmises and conjectures.” 3.…

VEDIC FOUNDATION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4550/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Ms.Astha Chandra[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Vedic Foundation Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 43-B, Ff, Dilshad Garden, Ward-26(2), New Delhi-110093. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaci8590C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024 Order Per N.K.Billaiya, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 31, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Grievances Of The Assessee Read As Under:-

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…rse orders only by making general observation and repeating that assessee did not produce the directors of these companies. Our adjudication finds support from following case laws relied upon by the assessee :- (i) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. 397 ITR 106 (Delhi) – It was held that in respect of addition under section 68 of the Act, when all documents provided and no scrutiny by AO of the documents, addition solely on the basis of Investigation Wing report is to be deleted. (ii) Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bombay), in connection with section 68 of the…

AAKRUTI KETAN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-35(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ided to the person against whom such material was used. • Documents produced were not even examined and/or disapproved by AO before making additions as had been his duty. Please see- Softline Creations (P) Ltd, 387 ITR 636 (Delhi) Laxman Industrial Resources, 397 ITR 106 (Delhi) Multitex Filtrations Engineers, 13 SOP 208 (Delhi) (Trib) • The documents relied upon by AO/CIT(A) but not confronted with to the appellant are not reliable and should be ignored in adjudicating the appeal. • No defects have been found by the AO in the evidences furnished and as a consequence no addition was possible. Please see- Rahul Vi…

VEDIC FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9170/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmavedic Foundation Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 26 (2), 43-B, 1St Floor, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 093. (Pan : Aaaci8590C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Order : 25.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…submitted that the assessment year concerned is prior to AY 2013-14, hence source of source examination is not applicable here. Further, ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon several case laws as under :- (i) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. 397 ITR 106 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bombay); (iii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Delhi); (iv) Shiv Dhoot Pearls 237 taxman 104 (Delhi); (v) Dwarkadhis Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Delhi); (vi) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 7. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. JAIPAL SINGH SHARMA TRUST, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2127/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

…7 ITD 222 (Mumbai - Trib.)[03-12- 2020],  Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. vs DCIT, Mum. [2021] 127 taxmann.com 808 (Mumbai — Trib.)/[2021] 189 ITD 388 (Mumbai — Trib.) [03-05-2021]  PCIT-5 vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., [2017] taxmann.com 648 (Delhi)/(2017) 397 ITR 106 (Delhi[14- 03-2017]  Bini Builders (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, Central range-7(3), [2020] 118 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib [2020] 185 ITD 236 (Mumbai-Trib.[12-03-2020)  Ancon Chemplast (P) Ltd. vs ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi - Trib.)2022) 93 ITR(T) 167 (Delhi - Trib.).[2021] 189 ITD 156 (Delhi-Trib [30-04-2021]  PCIT vs.…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. JAIPAL SINGH SHARMA TRUST, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2126/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

…7 ITD 222 (Mumbai - Trib.)[03-12- 2020],  Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. vs DCIT, Mum. [2021] 127 taxmann.com 808 (Mumbai — Trib.)/[2021] 189 ITD 388 (Mumbai — Trib.) [03-05-2021]  PCIT-5 vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., [2017] taxmann.com 648 (Delhi)/(2017) 397 ITR 106 (Delhi[14- 03-2017]  Bini Builders (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, Central range-7(3), [2020] 118 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib [2020] 185 ITD 236 (Mumbai-Trib.[12-03-2020)  Ancon Chemplast (P) Ltd. vs ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi - Trib.)2022) 93 ITR(T) 167 (Delhi - Trib.).[2021] 189 ITD 156 (Delhi-Trib [30-04-2021]  PCIT vs.…

AIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ANKIT SHARMA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

…7 ITD 222 (Mumbai - Trib.)[03-12- 2020],  Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. vs DCIT, Mum. [2021] 127 taxmann.com 808 (Mumbai — Trib.)/[2021] 189 ITD 388 (Mumbai — Trib.) [03-05-2021]  PCIT-5 vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., [2017] taxmann.com 648 (Delhi)/(2017) 397 ITR 106 (Delhi[14- 03-2017]  Bini Builders (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, Central range-7(3), [2020] 118 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib [2020] 185 ITD 236 (Mumbai-Trib.[12-03-2020)  Ancon Chemplast (P) Ltd. vs ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi - Trib.)2022) 93 ITR(T) 167 (Delhi - Trib.).[2021] 189 ITD 156 (Delhi-Trib [30-04-2021]  PCIT vs.…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3