408 (Del). Again, in CIT v. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.

263 CTR 456High Court2013#3307 most cited

What is 408 (Del). Again, in CIT v. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee only furnishes the PAN and no other documents to substantiate share application monies, this may be insufficient to meet the conditions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. · 263 CTR 456 · Section 68 · share application money · PAN · substantiation · unexplained credits · income tax act

Sections most often in play

Section 3.1Section 5/2024Section 115JBSection 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139

Judgments citing 408 (Del). Again, in CIT v. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1714/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 3Section 68

…three ingredients could be identified. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi-V vs. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/[2013] 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/[2013] 263 CTR 456 (Delhi)[21-12-2012] as well as in the case of CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. [2013] 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)/[2013] 214 Taxman 429 (Delhi)/[2013] 350 ITR 407 (Delhi)/[2013] 256 CTR 34 Page 7 of 20 I.T.A. No.: 1714/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 PHPL Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi)[07-01-2013] and also in the case of Balgopal Mer…

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…et by the assessee. 30. Further, we are of the view that the decisions cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and those cited by the ld. AR, the facts are not identical with the facts of the assessee as discussed herein below. (i) CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd reported in 263 CTR 456:- In this case the assessee has only furnished PAN and no other documents. (ii) Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt Ltd reported in 342 ITR 169:- This is a case where the assessee had received accommodation entries in the garb of share application monies from the entry operators. But in the case of the assessee it pertains to associate companies in t…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…et by the assessee. 30. Further, we are of the view that the decisions cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and those cited by the ld. AR, the facts are not identical with the facts of the assessee as discussed herein below. (i) CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd reported in 263 CTR 456:- In this case the assessee has only furnished PAN and no other documents. (ii) Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt Ltd reported in 342 ITR 169:- This is a case where the assessee had received accommodation entries in the garb of share application monies from the entry operators. But in the case of the assessee it pertains to associate companies in t…

MAHENDRA H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD- 4 (1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…Shah 13. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxman (165) 14. CIT vs. Frostair (P.) Ltd. (26 taxmann.com 11, 210 Taxman 221) 15. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/(2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi/(2013) 263 CTR 456 (Delhi). 16. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) 17. CIT Vs Focus Exports (P.) Ltd (51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi)/£2015] 228 Taxman I would also like to rely on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Jan Sampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 384 (Delhi) wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that " though it is t…

D. J. STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 313/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

…O, the assessee has submitted partial information. Thereafter, the ld.AO has made reference to large number of decisions viz. Rajshree Synthetics P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 176 CTR 300 (Raj), ITO Vs. Diza Holdings P.Ltd., 173 CTR 45 (Ker), CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio P.Ltd., 263 CTR 456 (Del), and ultimately made addition of Rs.3,87,72,000/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the addition the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It has filed an application for additional evidence, which was allowed by the ld.CIT(A). In paragraph-2.3 on page no.13 of the impugned order, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee was…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SPAN VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4446/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikanat C. Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…R 187) 10. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxman 165) 11. CIT vs. Frostair (P.) Ltd. (26 taxmann.com 11, 210 Taxman 221) 12. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/(2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi/(2013) 263 CTR 456 (Delhi) 13. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) 14. CIT Vs Focus Exports (P.) Ltd (51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi)/f2015] 228 Taxman 15. N K Proteins Ltd Vs CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) 16. NK Proteins Ltd Vs CIT (2016-TIOL-3165-HC-AHM-IT) 7. The Ld. A.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A) by submitting that the assess…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAI GAJANAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4861/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…d not go to discharge the onus that lay on the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169 (Del) and CIT v. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., 263 CTR 456 (Del.) as also relied by the Assessing Officer. Various other decisions have also been relied by the ld. DR in support of the reassessment order. 6 4. The learned Authorized Representative, on the other hand, repudiating the contentions of the ld. DR submitted at the outset that the notice u/s. 148 has been issued on 29.03.2014 after expiry of f…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SYNERGY FINLEASE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 4778/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2006-07 Ito (Exemptions) M/S. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ward-7(4), 3198/15, 4Th Floor, Gali No. 1, New Delhi. Sangatrashan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Vs. Pan Aabcs7160D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e (P) Ltd. (18 taxmann. Com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187 6. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd. (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxman 165) 7. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/{2013} 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/(2013) 263 CTR 456 (Delhi) 8. CIT vs. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd. 366 ITR 110) 9. CIT vs. Focus Exprots (P.) Ltd. (51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) (2015) 228 Taxman 88) 6. The Ld. DR further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 255 (SC)), decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHESH WOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4875/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where details furnished by assessee about share applicants were incorrect, addition under section 68 was proper 10 CIT Vs N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd f2013l 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)[2013] 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/r2013l 263 CTR 456 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if AO doubts the documents produced by assessee, the onus shifts on assessee to further substantiate the facts or produce the share applicant in proceeding. 11 CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR110) 12. where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHESH WOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4874/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where details furnished by assessee about share applicants were incorrect, addition under section 68 was proper 10 CIT Vs N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd f2013l 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)[2013] 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/r2013l 263 CTR 456 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if AO doubts the documents produced by assessee, the onus shifts on assessee to further substantiate the facts or produce the share applicant in proceeding. 11 CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR110) 12. where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHESH WOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4873/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where details furnished by assessee about share applicants were incorrect, addition under section 68 was proper 10 CIT Vs N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd f2013l 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)[2013] 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/r2013l 263 CTR 456 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if AO doubts the documents produced by assessee, the onus shifts on assessee to further substantiate the facts or produce the share applicant in proceeding. 11 CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR110) 12. where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOHAIL FINANCIALS LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4867/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Sohail Financials Ltd, Ward-9(1), C-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs3643M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Vs. Sohail Financials Ltd, Ward-9(1), C-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCS3643M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.K. Tewari, Sr. DR Assessee by: None Date of Hearing 24/09/2018 Date of pronouncement 28/09/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 24.08.2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, raising following effective two grounds of appeal:- “1…

TRILOK CHAND CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5871/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Mr. Trilok Chand Acit Chaudhary, Central Circle 26, 39, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. 110030 Pan No. Aaepc0683P

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

…nt of Allahabad High Court in the case of Prem Casting P. Ltd. vs. CIT 88 taxmann.com 189, judgment of Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. MAF Academy P. Ltd. 361 ITR 258, CIT vs. Navodhya Castle P. Ltd. 367 ITR 306 and CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio P. Ltd. 263 CTR 456. Ld. DR also submitted that statement recorded u/s 132(4) could be the basis for making addition against the assessee and relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT 351 ITR 143, CIT vs. M.S. Aggarwal 93 taxmann.com 247 and PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia, 81 taxmann.com 476. Ld. DR, therefore, subm…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUTLEJ AGRO PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…elopers (P) Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del) (vii). CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finleae (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169 (Del) (viii). CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P) Ltd., 220 Taxman 165 (Del) (ix). CIT v. Frostair (P) Ltd., 210 Taxman 221 (Del) (x). CIT v. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., 263 CTR 456 (Del.) Several other decisions in support of its contention have also been relied by the ld. DR on merits of the additions. 4.1 The ld. DR has also relied on the plethora of decisions as under on the validity of assessments made u/s. 153C of the IT Act : ITA Nos.289 to 293/Del/2015 14 (i). PCIT v. Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd. (2017-TIOL-13…

SUKUMAR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), NEW DELHI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6074/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

…. 252 CTR 187) 8. CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxman 165) 9. CIT Vs Frostair (P.) Ltd (26 taxmann.com 11, 210 Taxman 221) 10. CIT Vs N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd T2013l 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/[2013] 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/(2013) 263 CTR 456 (Delhi) 11. CIT Vs Empire Bulltech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) 12. CIT Vs Focus Exports (P.) Ltd (51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 88) 13. PCIT Vs Bikram Singh I1TA No.55/20171 (Delhi) 15. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. Ground No. 1 and 5 are general in nature in both the appeals hence dismissed. As regards to…

SANSKRITI TRADEX (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), NEW DELHI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

…. 252 CTR 187) 8. CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxman 165) 9. CIT Vs Frostair (P.) Ltd (26 taxmann.com 11, 210 Taxman 221) 10. CIT Vs N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd T2013l 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/[2013] 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/(2013) 263 CTR 456 (Delhi) 11. CIT Vs Empire Bulltech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) 12. CIT Vs Focus Exports (P.) Ltd (51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 88) 13. PCIT Vs Bikram Singh I1TA No.55/20171 (Delhi) 15. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. Ground No. 1 and 5 are general in nature in both the appeals hence dismissed. As regards to…

M/S. UMBRELLA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5955/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O Gh – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aatpa 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

…lopers (P) Ltd. 350 ITR 407.  CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169.  CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P) Ltd. (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxmann 165).  CIT vs. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291(Delhi) / 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi) / 263 CTR 456 (Delhi). 9. We have heard the arguments and perused the orders passed by the authorities below and the Paper Book. The only issue in this appeal is the addition of Rs. 86 Lakhs in respect of the share capital received by the assessee company during the year. As per the facts on record, the assessee company has received total share capital of Rs.…

JASAMRIT CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal) xiii. CIT vs. Nova Promotors & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del) xiv. Independent Media (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 14 (Del) xv. CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 218/Del.2012 xvi. CIT vs. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 263 CTR 456 (Del) xvii. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del) xviii. CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Anr. 299 ITR 263 (Del) xix. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) xx. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shaha vs. CIT 213 ITR 803 (Bom) a. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) xxi. VIP (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 265 ITR 202 (MP) xxii. CIT vs. Sophia F…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ELEGANT SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6173/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…(Cal.) iii. CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del.) iv. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del.). v. Mukesh Shah vs. ITO (2012) 246 CTR 82 (Jharkhand) vi. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd., (2013) 263 CTR 456 (Del.) vii. CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 110 (Del.) viii. CIT vs. Focus Exports (P) Ltd., (2014) 51 taxmann.com 46 (Del.). 6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and relied upon the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Adam…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

…ACIT V Surya Build well Private Limited ITA No 2702, 2703 /Del/2010, 2121, 2122 & 2123/Del/2012, 2706 /Del/2013 Surya Build well Private Limited V ACIT Co No 115 & 116/Del/2013 & CO No. 96, 97 & 98/Del/2014 A Y 2004-05 to 2009-10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2703 /Del/2010 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) ACIT, Surya Build well Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Central Circle-23, B-1, Udyog Nagar, Peera New Delhi Garhi Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 116/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 2703/Del/2010) (Ass…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2