CIT v. ARL Infratech Ltd.

394 ITR 383High Court2017#8075 most cited

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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 69C Section 153C Section 131 Section 132 Section 133(6)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100 section 153(c)(1)section 94 abatement of assessment anonymous donation section 153(c)onus of proof section 164 third party information income tax settlement commission section 31

Judgments citing CIT v. ARL Infratech Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 5315/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…unts, IT returns and balance sheet in addition to their confirmation letters were produced. In such circumstances, the Court held that since assessee had discharged its initial burden, addition under section 68 was to be deleted. • CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd.: 394 ITR 383 (Raj.): Where PAN of share applicants have been given and the mode of payment has been explained, in absence of any direct/ indirect relation between the assessee and the applicants, application money received cannot be doubted and added under section 68 of the Act. • DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders: 256 ITR 360 (Guj): The Court held that once the asses…

SMT. PREMA MUKESH JHALANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2) , THANE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…accepted [Ref. CIT v/s Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd - (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi), PCIT v/s Jatin Investments P. Ltd – ITA No.43 of 2016 Delhi High Court, PCIT v/s Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd- ITA 169 of 2017 Delhi High Court, CIT v/s ARL Infratech Ltd - (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Rajasthan), CIT v/s Jalan Hardcoke - (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 330 (Rajasthan). 7. The Ld. A.O. is not empowered to make addition merely on mere presumptions and surmises, without making any independent enquiry. Such an addition based on presumptions or assumptions is unsustainable [Ref: Dhirajlal Girdharilal v/s CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC), Dhakes…

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

…e no addition in the hands of a company for moneys received towards share capital. The Court held that, if necessary, the Revenue may reopen the assessment of the shareholders to bring to tax the alleged undisclosed amount.  CIT v. ARL Infratech Ltd.: [2017] 394 ITR 383 (Raj.): Where PAN of share applicants have been given and the mode of payment has been explained, in absence of any direct/ indirect relation between the assessee and the applicants, application money received cannot be doubted and added under section 68 of the Act.  Pr. CIT vs. Softline Creations (P) Ltd: 387 ITR 636 (Del): The Hon’ble Court he…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…s ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MORE SUPPORT TO THE STATEMENT: It is submitted that in the statement of third parties i.e. statement of Sh. Dinesh S…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

GOLDENDUNES HOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 603/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…stal Address, PAN, Confirmation, ITRs etc. are submitted then burden shifts upon the Revenue to prove the fault upon the assessee. The Bench rely upon the following case laws of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as under:- 1. CIT V. ARL Infratech Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 383 (Rajasthan) “..It had been found by the tribunal that the assessee had provided the permanent account numbers of the share applicants. The mode of payment had also been explained. There was no direct or indirect relationship between the assessee company and share applicants. The statements recorded during the survey had no evidentiary value witho…

ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MINIMED LABORATORIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3585/MUM/2019[A.Y- 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…done. In fact in various decisions it has been held that Assessee cannot be penalized for failure of the AO to perform his duty if the Assessee has furnished all the basic details explaining and evidencing its claims [Refer CIT v. ARL Infratech Ltd. - (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Rajasthan), CIT v. Jalan Hardcoke - (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 330 (Rajasthan)]. Likewise in the case of CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. - (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi) it has been held that once the Assessee furnishes all the requisite details the AO cannot sit back with folded hands till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his posses…

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…f Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), much water has flown under the bridge and earlier judgements namely Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254), Metachem Industries (245 ITR 160), CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. (394 ITR 383), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (307 ITR 334), Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. (399 ITR 425), ACIT vs. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (87 taxmann.com 216) and CIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (84 taxmann.com 58) will have no application in the present case where the partner company is a shell company, shown meager income for…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD. GADUMARIA, RAIGARH

In the result appeal ITA No

ITA 94/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal & Shri N.C.Gupta, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 131(1)Section 68

…n the assessee in this case. No substantial question of law arises. This appeal is dismissed." Following case laws are also relied upon 1. Orissa Corporation (P) Limited 159 ITR 78 2. CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 251 ITR 263 3. CITv.ARL Infratech Ltd, (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Raj.) 4. Guruprerna Enterprises v. ACIT ITAT No. 255, 256 & 257/Mum/ 2010 5. Pr. CIT v. Softline Creations P. Ltd. 387 ITR 636 (Del) 6. CIT v. Nipuan Auto P. Ltd. 227 Taxman 147 (Delhi)(Mag) 7. CIT v. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) 8. DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 9. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) 10. CIT v. Sop…

M/S. RATHI CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 4540/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. 66 of 2016 dated 10.04.2017. The SLP filed by Revenue in this case before the Apex Court has also been dismissed in SLP (Civil) Diary 5 | P a g e No. 12644/2018 dated 23.04.2018 (iii) Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. ARL Infratech Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 383 (iv) Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Russian Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. in ITA Nos. 547/2013 dated 15.12.2016 (v) ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO v. Softline Creations (P.) Ltd. in ITA No. 744/Del/2012 dated 10.02.2015, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA No. 504 of 2016 dated 31.08.2016 (vi) Delhi Hi…

M/S BALAJI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…consideration. 7. In support of its aforesaid contention that where the assessee has discharged the initial onus, no addition can be made in its hands, reliance was placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. 394 ITR 383, Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs ACIT 283 ITR 377, CIT vs. Bhaval Synthetics 217 taxman 23 and CIT vs. Morani Authomotives (P) Ltd. 264 CTR 86 besides various other decisions. 8. It was further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee Company was provided with the copies of statements of Mr. Surendra Kumar Jain and Mr.…

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

ITTA/137/2005HC Telangana20 Dec 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

For Appellant: Sri A.V.Krishna KaundinyaFor Respondent: Ms. K.Mamata

Section 68

…!Counsel for the appellant : Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya ^Counsel for the respondent : Ms. K.Mamata <GIST : >HEAD NOTE : ?Cases referred : 1. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del.) 2. (2000) 242 ITR 357 (AP) 3. (2003) 263 ITR 289 (Calcutta) 4. (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Raj.) CVNR, J. & MSKJ, J. itta_137_2005 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL I.T.T.A.No. 137 OF 2005 DATED 20TH DECEMBER, 2017 Between: M/s. Sriman Sai Securities Investment Finance Limited, Jagtial … Appellant AND The Deputy Commissioner of…