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 68Section 133(6)Section 147Section 69ASection 1961Section 131Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumpaper companyshare application moneyaddition u/s 68live linkadmission of additional evidenceentry operatorgenuineness of the transactionaddition under section 68rule 46a

Judgments citing CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…140 TTJ 233 (Pune) " All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum) " CIT Vs Chetan Das Lachman Das 254 CTR 392 (Del) " CIT Vs Anil Bhatia 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Ors 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 319 ITR (ST) 5 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.) " Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment ltd. 194 Taxman 43 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) " CIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…140 TTJ 233 (Pune) " All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum) " CIT Vs Chetan Das Lachman Das 254 CTR 392 (Del) " CIT Vs Anil Bhatia 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Ors 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 319 ITR (ST) 5 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.) " Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment ltd. 194 Taxman 43 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) " CIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd.…

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)

…vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78  CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 106  CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 778 of 2015  CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. General Exports and Credits Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268  CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order passed by the authorities below. It was submitted that AO was justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee. Further, the CIT(A) has examined the issue and rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO. The Ld. DR placed…

Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sankalp Corporate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1) M/S. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. CIT-1(3)(1) M/s. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AANCS 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by :…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Rathi Ispat Pvt. Ltd

ITA/151/2018HC Delhi09 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ITA 151/2018 Page 1 of 4 $~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : 09.02.2018 + ITA 151/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. versus M/S RATHI ISPAT PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) % The Revenue’s appeal seeks deletion of the sum of Rs.1,78,51,005/- brought to tax added by the Assessing Officer. 2. The assessee had reported receipt of…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…05/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [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), 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…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 231/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…estigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant's undisclosed income. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216 ITR 198 SC and the Delhi High Court in Divine Leasing and Finance Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 268 have held that in the case of money received towards share capital only the identity of the share holders needs to be proved and once that is established and it is also shown that the money did in fact come from them, it is not for the assessee to prove as to how the share applicants came to be in possession of the money. In the light of the abov…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 230/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…estigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant's undisclosed income. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216 ITR 198 SC and the Delhi High Court in Divine Leasing and Finance Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 268 have held that in the case of money received towards share capital only the identity of the share holders needs to be proved and once that is established and it is also shown that the money did in fact come from them, it is not for the assessee to prove as to how the share applicants came to be in possession of the money. In the light of the abov…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 229/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…estigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant's undisclosed income. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216 ITR 198 SC and the Delhi High Court in Divine Leasing and Finance Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 268 have held that in the case of money received towards share capital only the identity of the share holders needs to be proved and once that is established and it is also shown that the money did in fact come from them, it is not for the assessee to prove as to how the share applicants came to be in possession of the money. In the light of the abov…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 228/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…estigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant's undisclosed income. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216 ITR 198 SC and the Delhi High Court in Divine Leasing and Finance Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 268 have held that in the case of money received towards share capital only the identity of the share holders needs to be proved and once that is established and it is also shown that the money did in fact come from them, it is not for the assessee to prove as to how the share applicants came to be in possession of the money. In the light of the abov…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 227/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…estigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant's undisclosed income. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216 ITR 198 SC and the Delhi High Court in Divine Leasing and Finance Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 268 have held that in the case of money received towards share capital only the identity of the share holders needs to be proved and once that is established and it is also shown that the money did in fact come from them, it is not for the assessee to prove as to how the share applicants came to be in possession of the money. In the light of the abov…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 226/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…estigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant's undisclosed income. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216 ITR 198 SC and the Delhi High Court in Divine Leasing and Finance Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 268 have held that in the case of money received towards share capital only the identity of the share holders needs to be proved and once that is established and it is also shown that the money did in fact come from them, it is not for the assessee to prove as to how the share applicants came to be in possession of the money. In the light of the abov…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 225/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…estigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant's undisclosed income. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216 ITR 198 SC and the Delhi High Court in Divine Leasing and Finance Limited, (2008) 299 ITR 268 have held that in the case of money received towards share capital only the identity of the share holders needs to be proved and once that is established and it is also shown that the money did in fact come from them, it is not for the assessee to prove as to how the share applicants came to be in possession of the money. In the light of the abov…

Rahul Singhal Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1619/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Rahul Singhal Securities Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 15(1), 169, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ollowing decisions :- (a) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR (St) 5 (SC). (b) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). (c) Pr.CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 391 ITR 11 (Delhi). (d) CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi). (e) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 380 (Bom). 5 CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] ITA no.1433 of 2014 (Bom). 8. Ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has not produced the share applicants despite being asked for by the Assessing Officer. T…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) " CIT Vs Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " CIT Vs Achal Investments Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211 (Del.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 " Sarthak Securities Co. (P) ltd. Vs ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del.) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that there were sufficient reasons for the AO to belief that the income had esc…

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

…Court and accordingly attained judicial finality and stamp of approval. (17) In addition, Your Honor's kind attention is also invited to the following judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd [(2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi)] has held as follows:- In the case of a company the following are the propositions of law under section 68. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/ subscriber; (2) the genuineness of the transaction, namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable 12 ITA.No.6173/Del./2013 M/s…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…quate material and his conclusions are in the realm of suspicion, conjecture and surmises - Business loss claimed by assessee was allowable as shown in its books of account." 3.31. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (Page Nos 707-726 of the Paper Book - 11) held that "A distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in context of s. 68. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber (2) the genuineness of the transaction namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisp…