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.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ms. Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 620/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…made by the applicant actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee, so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. Further the following observation of the jurisdictional H.C. in case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (207 CTR 38), which has been quoted with approval in the case of Dwarkadhish Investment (Supra) are also quite relevant viz. “In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of s. 68 of the IT Act. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber, (2) the genuineness…

Om Machineries Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax V

ITA/176/2016HC Delhi08 Nov 2016

Section 132Section 68

…the impugned judgment given by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, the observations of their Lordships have to be read with the enunciation of law on the subject by the Hon‟ble High Court. The Hon‟ble High Court in its decision in the said case (299 ITR 268) having analyzed the decisions of the various High Courts as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Stellar Investment Ltd., (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC), distilled the precedents in para 16 of the judgments and has clearly enunciated that all the three ingredients of the section 68, (identity and credit worthin…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…and has failed to notice the money laundering indulged into and the clandestine manner in which unaccounted and black money had been brought into books by this dubious method. It is contended that the decision in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi) is being misunderstood and misinterpreted resulting in a spate of matters wherein assessees have adopted this surreptitious method to convert unaccounted for money into share application money. 3. Revenue has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 I…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

ACIT, Circle - 1, Asansol vs. Burnpur Cement Ltd., Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar CIT DR

Section 144

…Promoters Pvt Ltd in ITA 234 & 235 /2015 dated 27.11.2015 (iv) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) (v) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd reported in 299 ITR 268 (Del) (vi) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Roseberry Mercantile (P) Ltd dated 10.1.2011 (vii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd in ITA No. 71, 72 & 84 /2015 dated 12.8.2015 (viii) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd reported in (2014) 101 DTR 413 (Cal) d…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

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

…rectors and shareholders or that of the sub-creditors. If it had any doubts with regard to their credit worthiness, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of the creditors and/or sub- creditors. [See CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 15. In view of the legal position explained in the above decisions, the Court holds that as far as the present case is concerned, the Assessee has indeed discharged its onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender (TlL). There was no requirement in law for the As…

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6365/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 131Section 68

…It has come up for discussion in various judgments rendered by this Court, other Courts as well as the Supreme Court. The law was discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2007) 207 CTR (Del) 38 : (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del). Since the entire gamut of case law as on that date was visited in the said judgment, we may initiate our discussion by taking note of this case. In this case, the Court highlighted the menace of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or such channels of investment in the share capital of a company and thus stressed upon the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Plastograph India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 3556/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-3556/Del/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) ACIT, Vs M/s Plastograph India Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-5, Room No.361, 23/5, Shakti Nagar, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Delhi-110007. Jhandewalan Extn., PAN-AAACP7194F New Delhi-110055. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.No.301/Del/2012 (In I.T.A .No.-3556/Del/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) M/s Plastograph India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT, 23/5, Shakti Nagar, Central Circle-5, Room No.361, Delhi-110007. 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, PAN-AAACP…

Sri. T. Thimmegowda vs. ITO, Bangalore

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri D. Devaraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.272 & 273/Bang/2013 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri T. Thimmegowda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.690/O, 14th Cross, Ward 4(3), Opp. VET College, Bangalore. 2nd Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. PAN: AFVPG 8261P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri D. Devaraj, CA Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 30.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Section 68

…the Assessing Officer completely overlooked the fact that all the transactions were made through cheques. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Private Limited reported in 299 ITR 268 (Del), wherein it has been held that where the transactions were through cheque , the genuineness of the transaction is duly established. He also further relied on the judgement in the case of additional CIT Vs. Bahri Brothers Private Limited reported in (1985) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) wherein it is held that very fact that all the transactions were en…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gazipur Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1638/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Gazipur Properties Pvt. Ltd., Ward-12(1), 150, Bank Enclave, Vs. New Delhi Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5020B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 68

…share application money or share capital. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi:- i) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195; ii) CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2007) 299 ITR 268 (Del). iii) CIT vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. TDI Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 26 DTK (Del.) 358;and v) Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 179 Taxman 25(Del); (2010)320 ITR 419 (Delhi); vi) CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals (P) Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR (Del) 139;(2011)330 ITR 603(Delhi) vii) CIT vs Unit…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 647/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…re application money or share capital. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi:- i) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195; ii) CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2007) 299 ITR 268 (Del.). Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 13 & 16 has held as under:- "13. There cannot be two opinions on the aspect that the pernicious practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or channel of investment in the share capital of a company must be firmly excoriated by the revenue. Equally, where the preponderance of evid…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 306/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Delhi High court in the case of CIT - Divine Lasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Delhi High Court], wherein it is held as under: The tribunal has further found that the AO has not brought any positive material or evidence which would indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that any part of the share capital represented company's own income from undisclosed sources. As regards receipt of share…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…rsons are corporate entities. In the light of these facts, in my opinion, the subscription to the capital of the assessee by the above mentioned three persons was adequately explained. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (299 ITR 268) has held that the assessee has to, prima facie, prove:- (I) the identity of the creditor/subscriber, (2) the genuineness of the transaction, namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels; and (3) the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber. It was also held that: (i) if relevant…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Nishit Fincap (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2515/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Nishit Fincap (P) Ltd., Ward 13(3), B-58, Gujranwala Town-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacn3687M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Ca Respondent By: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2016

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…as discharged its burden of providing basic details which were required for verification to fulfill the conditions as laid down by higher judicial authorities for examining the issue u/s. 68 of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 207 CTR 38, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed as under:- ‘There cannot be two opinions on the aspect that the pernicious practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or channel of investment in the share capital of a company must be firmly excoriated by the Revenue. Equally, where the preponderance of evidence indica…

ITO 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jinit Properties P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 3989/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/3989/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-10(3)2 Jinit Properties Pvt. Ltd. Room No.456,4Th Floor 301, Bhag Chs Ltd. Plot No.29 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sector-14, Navi Mumbai-400 705. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabcj 5056 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Rahul R. Sarda सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dtd.25/03/2014 Of The Cit (A)-22,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 3/10/ 2007, Declaring Total Income At Rupees Nil.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3) Of The Act, On 30/12/2010, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 54.99 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul R. SardaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69

…in spite of the repeated directions issued u/s.250(4), that the burden of proving all the three elements had shifted to the AO, that the AO was duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the subscribers. The FAA relied upon the cases of lovely Exports (299 ITR 268) and Major Metals(359 ITR 450)and held that it was the duty of the AO to make enquiries with the subscribers,that the AO had purely gone by the SEBI order based on its own investigation,that he did not bring any material on record to prove that assessee had given cash which in turn was routed and got invested as share application money,that in ab…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, Ward-12(4), 17, 3Rd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aabch2336L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ing as long as the Principal Officer of Shubiz Exports was not made available. This issue as to what length an appellant can traverse to justify its credits in the books of account came up in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 268 Delhi}. The ITAT in that case had recorded a finding that the AO had not bought any positive material or evidence which would indicate that the shareholders wore (a) benamidars (b) fictitious persons, or (c) that any part of the share capital represented the company’s own income from undisclosed source and hence held that the assessee had dischar…