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.

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

…not undertake any verification. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268. The ITAT confirmed the opinion of the Ld.CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court in view of the above findings noted that the assessee had provided several ITA Nos.289 to 293/Del/2015 24 documents that could have showed light into whether truly the transactions were genuine. The assessee provided details of share applicants i.e. copy of the PAN, Assessment…

Priytam Plaschem P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, both these grounds of appeals of

ITA 2534/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Gautam JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…Ld. CIT(A). Detailed submissions of the assessee are noted in the appellate order in which the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., 299 ITR 268 and M/s. Earthmetal Electrical Pvt. Ltd., dated 30 July, 2010. The assessee also relied upon decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shiv DhootiPearls &Investment Ltd., 237 Taxman 104 (Del.), MOD Creation (P) Ltd., vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.), CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.71 of 2015 dated 12.…

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

…elhi High Court while coming to a particular disapproved the decision taken in CIT vs Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 and also considered the decision in DIT vs Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC) and Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (SC). The relevant finding from the aforesaid order dated 15/02/2012 (Nova Promotors and Finlease Pvt. Ltd.) is reproduced hereunder:- …… 7 Leela G. Lalwani Assessment Year-2003-04 In the aforesaid order an elaborate discussion has been made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Likewise, the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Coal Corpo…

Heatflex Cables Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2376/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…/Del./2018 M/s. Heat Flex Cables (P) Ltd., New Delhi addition by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268. The ITAT confirmed the opinion of the Ld.CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court in view of the above findings noted that the assessee had provided several documents that could have showed light into whether truly the transactions were genuine. The assessee provided details of share applicants i.e. copy of the PAN, Assessment particulars, mode of amount i…

Shreenath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 279/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR

Section 115BSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 279/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14 cuke M/s. Shreenath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd. The ACIT Vs. G-1/100, RIICO Area Circle Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICS 3950 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Re…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as also established. In the present case, in the light of the judgment of Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra), only establishment of the identity of the investor is to be seen. The Delhi High Court also, in the case of CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 2681[2007] 158 Taxman 440, considering a similar question held that the assessee- company, having received subscriptions from the public/rights issue through banking channels and furnished complete details of the shareholders, no addition could be made under section 68 in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the sharehold…

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sumit Woods P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3195/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aarju GarodiaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay R. Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…f justified, make additions in the hands of SIPL. Such addition cannot be made in the hands of the appellant. This is the view supported by the decisions in the cases of CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) and CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.)” In this manner, the CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of Rs.5,25,00,000/-, against which the Revenue is in appeal before us. As a perusal of the Ground of appeal no.1 reveals that the sum and substance of the stand of the Revenue before us is that assessee had failed to provide the book value per share and, therefore, it could not justi…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…d. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), 19 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 x. CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi)(para 8), xi. Lotus Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 479 (Kol.) of 2011] (para 8), xii. CIT v. Lotus Capital Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [ITAT No. 125 of 2012] (para 8), xiii. CIT v. Dataware (P.) Ltd. [ITAT No. 263 of 2011] (para 8), xiv. CIT v. Roseberry Mercantile (P.) Ltd. [G.A. No. 3296 of 2…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…as not conducted any inquiry except issuing the notices) he cannot reach a conclusion that the credits appearing in the books of the assessee are fake............” 13. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del) " CIT, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Sumati Dayal vs. CIT-Bangalore [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) " CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) " Jalan Timber vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) 23 Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. " Addl. CIT Bihar vs. Hanuman Prasad Aggarwal 151 ITR 151 (Pat) " CIT vs. Kannan K…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xo Infotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Appeal of the Department is

ITA 3342/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L.P.Sahu[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Xo Infotech Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Now Known As M/S. Saral Mining Ltd.), 304, Saffron Vs. Ward-7(3), Room No.306, Building, Panchvati To Ambawadi Road, Ambawadi C.R.Building, New Delhi. Ellisbeidge,Ahmedabad- 380006.Pan-Aaaxx0059K (Appellant) (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri Vijay Varma, Cit-D.R. By Assessee : Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT-D.R

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

…We have examined the position, we find that the shareholders are genuine parties. They are not bogus and fictitious therefore, the impugned order is set aside.” 10.5. Decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., 299 ITR 268, in which it was held as under : “No adverse inference should be drawn if shareholders failed to respond to the notice by A.O. 10.6. Decision of Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd., (2013) 356 ITR 65, in which it was held as under : “Dismissing the appeals, that if the assessee had received subscriptio…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)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 ass essees and had disclosed the share application money in their accounts which were duly reflected in their Income-tax return as well as in their b…

ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gold Finger Establishment, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…Assessing Officer. On above proposition I relied on following decisions:- 1. CIT V/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bombay HC) 2. ANIL KIJMAR MIDHA (HUF) V/s IT0[2006] 153 TAXMAN 65 (JODH.) (MA G.) 3. CIT V/s Divine Leasing etc 299 ITR 268 (Del HC) SLP was also CO No.94/M/2017 M/s. Gold Finger Establishment dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 4. Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. V/s CIT (1987) 168 JTR 493 (Cal HC) 5. Dy CIT V/s Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (CLI]). SLP was also dismissed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 6. Anis Ahmed V/s CIT (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC) 7. CIT V/s U K Sha…

Pratik Syntex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6690/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Pratik Syntex Private Ito 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar V. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaecp3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 51 taxmann.com 387 (SC), I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 b)CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/[1993] 70 Taxman 69 (Delhi), c) CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi), d) CIT v. Lovely Exports Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268, e)CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease P. Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217(Delhi), f) CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407/214 Taxman 429/30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi), g) CIT v. N.R. Protfolio P. Ltd. [2014] 222 taxman 157/42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi)., h) CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820(Cal.)…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘E’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Saigal Sea Trade, CIT-18, J.V. House, 02nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAAFS6920K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain Shri Manjunatha Swamy-CIT राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 07/05/2018 सुनवाई…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…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 "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3608 & 3609/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Gautam Tube Corporation, Pr. CIT-19, 1st Floor, 7, Doshi Bhavan, Room No.228, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ 02nd Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Raod, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADFG0524A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rajesh Chamaria…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2325/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2325/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) M/s. Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. 112, Maker Chambers–III ……………. Appellant 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AADCR0426K v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(3)(1), Mumbai ITA no.3036/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–3(3)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. 112, Maker Chambers–III ……………. Respondent 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AADCR0426K…

Choice Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri Ran Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 132(4)Section 139(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…DTR 73  CIT vs. Bhaval Synthetics (2013) 84 DTR 449 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Supertech Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 229 Taxman 62 (Rajasthan High Court)  Shri Barakha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 155 Taxman 239 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Diving Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (SC)  CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC)  CIT vs. Lovely Export (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 It is submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has quoted certain decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in support of his order. It is submitted that the Judicial Disciple requires that the Learned CIT(A) should have followed the de…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District CIT-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAM3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri B. Srinivas, C…

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…na of earlier decisions such as case of CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169, CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2014] 222 Taxman 157, CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98(Delhi) (FB), CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268, CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 and has held as under: “12. The main submission of the learned counsel for the assessee is that once the assessee had been able to show that the shareholder companies were duly incorporated by the…