How many judgments cite CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.?

426 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 69A, Section 1961.

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.

299 ITR 268High Court2008#169 most cited

What is CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

426

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. · section 68 · share capital · share premium · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · genuineness of transaction · addition u/s 68 · PAN identity · Rule 46A

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 440207 CTR 38

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 69A Section 1961 Section 131 Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor source of source share capital and share premium paper company share application money addition u/s 68 live link admission of additional evidence entry operator genuineness of the transaction addition under section 68 rule 46a

Judgments citing CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1179/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 144Section 68

…se as shares are issued a after receiving payment vide a/c payee cheque and the shareholders who are Income Tax Assessee in the Department itself and therefore application of test of human probability does not arise at all. 8. The decision of "Divine Leasing (299 ITR 268) is also not applicable as there is no evidences of commission unaccounted money in form of investment in Share Capital. 9. The CIT has also relied on following Judgment: i) Rampyari Devi Saraogivs.CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) ii) Tara Devi Agarwal vs CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC) iii) Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) iv) CIT vs Sophia Finance…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota

ITA 1207/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14ASection 68

…ition can be made in the hand of borrower as rightly held in case of CIT v/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rock Fort Metal & Minerals Ltd. [2011] 198 TAXMAN 497 (Delhi), Divine Leasing & Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) and others on this question of law. 5.10 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under the law is given to the income tax authorities only and therefore, in view of the judgment CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota

ITA 1206/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14ASection 68

Wood Craft Exports Co. Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3802/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Pratiyush Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 68

….) and CIT vs. Fair Finvest (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., 299 ITR 268. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessment year under appeal is 2013-2014 i.e., relevant to F.Y. 2012- 2013. The assessee-company filed Certificate of Incorporation which proves that assessee-company was i…

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 998/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

…, 206 (2014) DLT 277 (DB) (Del). The aforesaid decisions mentioned above refer to the earlier decisions of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB)(Delhi), CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and observations of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [2008] 319 ITR (St.) 5 (SC). 12. The main submission of the learned counsel for the assessee is that once the assessee had been able to show that the share holder companies were duly incorporated by the…

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 997/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota

ITA 1057/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 999/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5975/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Ito, Vs. Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ward-5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. 10, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Pan: Aaack3995P Co No.171/Del/2015 (Ita No.5975/Del/2014) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 10, Local Shopping Centre, Ward-5(2), Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack3995P

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

…ratio of CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169 (HC - Delhi) is applicable and addition made by the AO is sustainable while in other type of case ratio of CIT v. Divine 10 CO No.171/Del/2015 Leasing & Finance Ltd./Lovely Exports [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxman 440 is applicable and addition made by the AO is not sustainable. In my considered opinion ratio of the case of CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd./Lovely Exports [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxman 440 is applicable in the case of the appellant company as the AO has not made any further enquiry by his own and by making additi…

Stryton Exim India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…nt is free to proceed to assess them individually in accordance with law. The Supreme Court did not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court which was a common order along with the decision in CIT v, Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi). Since the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has not only found that the identity of each of the shareholders .stood established, but has also examined the fact that each of them’ were income-lax assessees and had disclosed the shape application money in their accounts which were duly reflected in their Income-tax return as well as in their…

M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 573/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…Tirupati Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2(1) (4) Surat/I.T.A. No.573/Ahd/2017/A.Y.:12-13 Page 1 of 31 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/s. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat PAN: AACCT 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee…

Anju Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1322/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Anju Chawla Vs ACIT A-7, Nirman Vihar Central Circle-IX, Delhi-110092 New Delhi PAN AALPC1212B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Sh. Kislaya, Parashar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. N. K Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 27/09/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12/10/2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.12.2014 of the CIT(A)-27, New Delhi relating to A.…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids vs Pr. CIT-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, LBS M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AADCG2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue b…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 133ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. Nos.1448, 1449 & 1467/Mum/2017 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dy. CIT-CC-7(2), M/s. Manba Finance Ltd. Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, 324, Runwal Height, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 4681 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Respondent by : Dr. P. Daniel Date of Hearing : 06.08.2018 : 05.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the Revenu…

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5637/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahurajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-134, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. New Delhi Aaacr0366B Appellant Respondent

Section 68

…iv. CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del.); v. CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603; vi. CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.). 14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 held that “no adverse inference should be drawn, if shareholders failed to respond to the notice issued by the AO”. 15. The AO noted in the assessment order that the DIT (Inv.) in the course of investigation in the case of Shri Mukesh Gupta, Shri Rajan Jassal and Shri Surinder Pal Singh recorded their statements. The assessee was supplied wit…

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…

Raj Kumar Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1323/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

…n accorded an opportunity to cross examine Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Therefore, such evidence cannot be relied upon in evidence against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.), decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, decision Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P). Ltd. 307 ITR 332 (Del.) and others. 7 5. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of the assessee and material on record admitted the additio…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…. Orissa Corporation P Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd [2001] 251 ITR 263 (SC), CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Del-HC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Del-HC), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 100 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Green Infra Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 680 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd. [2017] 400 ITR 439 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Apeak Info Tech Nagpur & Ors [2017] 397 148 (Bom- HC), CIT v. Orchid I…

Highrise Propcon Pvt. Ltd.(Now As N M Financiers Pvt. Ltd.), Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

ITA 99/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133(6)Section 68

…e made only in the hands of share applicant and not in the hands of the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 238 CTR 402 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. Devine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 207 CTR 38 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. A.K.J. Granites Pvt. Ltd. 301 ITR 298 (Raj. HC) M/s. High Rise Propcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has recorded in the assessment order that the notice was issued to the said party being share applicant at the address provided by the assessee and, therefore, if the assessee s…

ITO, Jaipur vs. High Rise Propcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

ITA 91/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133(6)Section 68