Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

63 DTR 201Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#8530 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)paper companyshell companypermanent account numberprincipal officersource of sourcesection 194aon-moneyentry operatoraddition u/s 68addition under section 68section 145(3)

Judgments citing Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.252/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikash Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated 01/…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal
Section 131Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.247/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikas Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 87/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 115JSection 153ASection 263

…taxmann.com 733 (SC)  Vasantlal and co. v. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC)  Sumati Dayal v. CIT 80 taxman 89 (SC)  Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT ( All.H.C.)  Smt. Shanta Devi vs. CIT 37 Taxman 104 (Punjab & Haryana H.C.)  Agrawal Coal Corpn. (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 63 DTR 201  CIT vs. Frostair (P) Ltd. 26 Taxmann.com 11 (Delhi H.C.)  CIT vs. Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. 25 taxmann.com 239 (Alld. H.C.)  DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 127 Taxman 523 (Gujarat H.C.)  CIT vs. Nova promoters &finlease (P) Ltd. 18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi H.C.) 7 DCIT vs. Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.  CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. 29 taxmann.com (Delh…

ACIT 22 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUKHANA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6508/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…a g e | 2 2 Appeals ACIT-22(3) Vs. M/s Rukhana Enterprises 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the latest decision of the Hon. Indore Bench of ITAT in the case of Agarwal Coal Corpn.(p) Ltd Vs Asst CIT 63 DTR 201. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the bogus loans and the interest there on ignoring the fact that the parties from whom the assessee has obtained loan are bogus paper companies, ignoring the decisions wherein decisions in favour of Revenue existed which held that the addition made in th…

ACIT 22 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUKHANA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6505/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…a g e | 2 2 Appeals ACIT-22(3) Vs. M/s Rukhana Enterprises 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the latest decision of the Hon. Indore Bench of ITAT in the case of Agarwal Coal Corpn.(p) Ltd Vs Asst CIT 63 DTR 201. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the bogus loans and the interest there on ignoring the fact that the parties from whom the assessee has obtained loan are bogus paper companies, ignoring the decisions wherein decisions in favour of Revenue existed which held that the addition made in th…

JUGRAJ DHANRAJ RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -21 (1) (5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Prafulbhai Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…andi of bogus entry 6 Mr. Jugraj Dhanraj Rathod operators referred to in the bare act provision of section 68 and discussed the plethora of case laws viz. Smt. Shanta Devi vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 532 (Punj. & Har.), Agrawal Coal Corp. (P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT 63 DTR 201, CIT vs. Frostair (P.) Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi), CIT vs. Hindon Forge (P.) Ltd. (2012) 25 taxmann.com 239 (All.), judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. dated 15.02.2012, CIT vs. NR Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos.134/2012, Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195 (Del) & Di…

ITO 22 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAI EVEREST BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6490/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…n law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition relying upon the judgement of various courts which are distinguishable on facts, however has overlooked the judgement of Hon'ble Indore Bench of ITAT in case of Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. vs Asst. CIT 63 DTR 201 and judgement of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) wherein the Hon’ble courts have held that merely because the companies were registered with ROC, were filing return of income , having PAN/Bank accounts etc. did not establish their identity as these companies might have been existing on papers or in real…

ITO 22 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAI EVEREST BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…n law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition relying upon the judgement of various courts which are distinguishable on facts, however has overlooked the judgement of Hon'ble Indore Bench of ITAT in case of Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. vs Asst. CIT 63 DTR 201 and judgement of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) wherein the Hon’ble courts have held that merely because the companies were registered with ROC, were filing return of income , having PAN/Bank accounts etc. did not establish their identity as these companies might have been existing on papers or in real…

ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI vs. SAI EVEREST BUILDERS $ DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4105/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…n law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition relying upon the judgement of various courts which are distinguishable on facts, however has overlooked the judgement of Hon'ble Indore Bench of ITAT in case of Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. vs Asst. CIT 63 DTR 201 and judgement of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) wherein the Hon’ble courts have held that merely because the companies were registered with ROC, were filing return of income , having PAN/Bank accounts etc. did not establish their identity as these companies might have been existing on papers or in real…

ITO-22(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SAI EVEREST BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4096/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…n law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition relying upon the judgement of various courts which are distinguishable on facts, however has overlooked the judgement of Hon'ble Indore Bench of ITAT in case of Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. vs Asst. CIT 63 DTR 201 and judgement of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) wherein the Hon’ble courts have held that merely because the companies were registered with ROC, were filing return of income , having PAN/Bank accounts etc. did not establish their identity as these companies might have been existing on papers or in real…

LEELA G. . LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6399/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6399/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2003-04) Leela G.Lalwani Income Tax Officer 23(2)(4) J-301, Vardhaman Nagar बनाम/ C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex Jn Of R.P., R.D. & M.G.Road, Vs. Mulund(W), Mumbai-400 080 Bandra, Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaapl-4174-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Rajesh Athavale, Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Rajesh Athavale, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…transaction. The assessee is also one of the beneficiaries of such camouflage. Thus, when the total transaction is illusory/bogus. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Agarwal Cole Corporation (63 DTR 201; 135 ITD 270)(Indore Bench of the Tribunal), wherein, one of us (Judicial Member) is signatory to the order. The ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 324 ITR 0169 (Del.) supports our view. It is also noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while coming to a particular disapproved the decision taken in…

SH. ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip SinghFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…h the investments have been made. The assessee has also failed to satisfactorily explain the reason of investment of shares. 9.1 The Ld. DR relied on the case recent decision by Hon. Indore Bench of ITAT in case of Agrawal Coal Corpn. (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 63 DTR 201. In this case it was held by the Tribunal that merely because the companies were registered with ROC, were filling return of income, having PANs/bank accounts, share application forms were submitted but the same did not establish their identity as these companies might have been existing on papers or in real sense at the time of registration. 9.2…

DISHA N . LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…transaction. The assessee is also one of the beneficiaries of such camouflage. Thus, when the total transaction is illusory/bogus. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Agarwal Cole Corporation (63 DTR 201; 135 ITD 270)(Indore Bench of the Tribunal), wherein, one of us (Judicial Member) is signatory to the order. The ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 324 ITR 0169 (Del.) supports our view. It is also noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while coming to a particular disapproved the decision taken in…

Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (63 DTR 201) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax