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 366,005 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.

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

…(Del.)  CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd: 361 ITR 220 (Del.)  CIT v. Victor Electodes Ltd.: 329 ITR 271 (Del.)  CIT v. Nipuan Auto (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 155 (Delhi)  CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.: 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB)  Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. &Ors: 299 ITR 268 (Del.) affirmed in Lovely Export (P) Ltd.: 319 ITR (St.) 5  CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment Ltd: 194 Taxman 43 (Del.)  CIT v Antartica Investment (P) Ltd. 262 ITR 493 (Del)  PCIT vs Ami Industries India (P) Ltd: 424 ITR 219 (Bom.)  Orient Trading Co. Limited: 49 ITR 723 (Bom.)  CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. – [2017] 80 taxmann.com…

Rewin Ceramics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4580/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Rewin Ceramic Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-21(3) A-410, Ansal Chamber-I Vs. New Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi PAN:AADCK5934F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. , Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA & Sh. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/07/2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of L…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Bdr Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2452/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2451/ & 2452/Del/2023 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19) DCIT, Vs. BDR Builders and Jhandewalan Ext. Developers Pvt Ltd, Delhi C-43, LGF, Jangpura Extension, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AACCB3977G Assessee by : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Sailesh Gupta, Adv Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.2451/Del/2…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewallan Extn., Delhi vs. Bdr Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2451/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

ITO-13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO-13(2)(1) v. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 PAN: AALCS9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented by : Dr. Kishor Dhule Date of conclusion of Hearing : 06.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR B…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Pune, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Akurdi vs. Rising Enterprise, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1425/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-9(1), Vs. Rising Enterprise, Pune Survey No.44, Near Bsnl Telephone Exchange, Next To Bank Of India, Dehu Road – 412 101 Maharashtra Pan : Aaxfr0053K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 68

…ource of investment or the said investors, the additions should have been made in the case of those parties and not in the hands of the appellant firm, placing on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of 5. the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the appellant. 6. Heard ld.…

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2048/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…e following cases have already been referred earlier in the above mentioned decisions of Delhi High Court:- a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Limited [1994] 205 ITR 98 b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited [2008] 319 ITR 9.1 By placing reliance on all the above mentioned decision of various Hon'ble Courts, the AO has attempted to prove the following facts:- a) That mere filing of income tax file numbers of the creditors is not enough to prove the genuineness of the transactions. b)…

DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2739/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2488/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Vs ACIT, 72, Mudali Thottam, Central Circle-31, Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, New Delhi Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N ITA No. 2739/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 DCIT, Vs Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-19, 72, Mudali Thottam, New Delhi Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N CO No. 140/Del/2023 : Ass…

Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu vs. ACIT, Centyral Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2488/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Ksj Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 1110/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ksj Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [Pan:Aadcc-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, FCA and Shri. Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 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. (2 008] 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 shareholder companies were duly incorporated by the…

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

…s of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 5, CIT Vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 106, CIT Vs. Rakam Money Matter 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. 14. That the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of doubt and should be deleted as the same is based on surmises and conjectures.” 3. All the grounds have been considered. Unexplained Cash Credit & Commission: 4. We have examined the record before us. We have gone through the adjudica…

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…idences, deserve to be deleted and the assessee prays accordingly. Reliance is placed on the following:- 1. CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) 2. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3. Divine Leasing ete Vs. CIT 299 ITR 268 (DEL) 4. 34 ITR 328 (MAD) & Ker HC in 117 ITR 371 5. Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs DCIT (ITAT JPR) in ITA 1503/JP/2018 dated 15.02.2021 We also find it relevant to quote from letter dated 16.10.2023 (copy enclosed with this submission) issued to the assessee from the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department,…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…13] 34 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat): Expenditure cannot be disallowed on account of 'bogus purchase' only on basis of assumption and presumption 8. View taken in Modi creation Pvt. Ltd. Is also taken in following decision. i. CIT v/s Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 158 Taxmann 440 (Delhi) (2007). ii. Nemichand Kothari V/s CIT (136 Taxman 216) (Gau.) (2004). iii. CIT V/s Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)(2008). Thus, the addition made on the basis of bad-assessment order is also bad-in-law and requires to be deleted. C. CASE LAWS RELIED BY LD. AO DISTINGUISHED 1. The Ld. AO in the assessment order has…

M/S. Trinity Global Enterprises Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…could not be added to income of assessee - According to Tribunal, in such a case amount could be taxed in hands of persons who had invested - Whether in view of decision rendered in cases of CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd./Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 / [2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi) and Jaya Securities Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 166 Taxman 7 (All.) impugned order passed by Tribunal was to be upheld - Held, yes [In favour of assessee].” HLT Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi) /[2011] 201 Taxman 28 (Delhi) “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1…

Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Flagship Housing Development P. Ltd.( Formerly Known As M/S. Absolute Building Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4642/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

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

…re investment is proved non- genuine, the addition needs to be made in the hands of the subscriber but not in the hands of the appellant company. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd 299 ITR 268 and Lovely Exports P Ltd. 216 CTR 195. 8. The ld. CIT(A) held that in so far as share premium is concerned, same is not taxable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. 10 M/s. Flagship Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. Ltd reported in [2014] 368 ITR 1 (Bombay) and held that the premium received i…

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Puja Synthetics Private Limited, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 87/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 115JSection 153ASection 263

….)  CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 86 taxmann.com 3 (Bombay H.C.)  Pr. CIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (2017) 86 taxmann.com 148 (Gujarat H.C.)  CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC)  Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi H.C.)  Pr. CIT vs. Chain House International (P.) Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com 47 (MP H.C.)  Pr. CIT vs. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (2019) 107 taxmann.com 85 (SC)  Pr. CIT vs. Rohtak Chain Co. (P.) Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 59 (SC)  Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Securities (P.) Ltd. (2020) 113 taxmann.com 32 (SC)  Cornerstone Property Invest…

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Income Tax Officer Vs Rama Allure LLP Ward, Phalodi, 98, Krishna Nagar, Jodhpur Pal Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAZFR 4837 P Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari, C.A. & Sh. Ajay Moondra Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT Date of hearing 14/07/2023 Date of 09/10/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by revenue and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 28.02.2023 [here in a…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Universal Electronics and Communications P. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2253/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 153ASection 53ASection 68

…a finance Ltd. (1994] 205 ITR 9g (FB) (De’wh CIT vs. Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. ((2014) 49 taxmann.com 13 (Del.) 361 ITR 155 (Del.), Commissioner of Income-tax vs Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 2011 330 ITR 603(Del.), CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi), CIT v. Stellar Investments Ltd 192 ITR 287 (Del.) & CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC)and contended that the appellant duly discharged the initial burden to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness by submitting necessary documentary evidences in respect of the share application money. Reliance is also…

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

ITA 753/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2012-13 M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito N-18, First Floor, Ward-15(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017 Pan Aabcl9997R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2012-13 M/s. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO N-18, First Floor, Ward-15(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017 PAN AABCL9997R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate, Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Department by: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date of 13.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

…he investigation wing of the Income Tax Department to show that the monies represented the appellant’s undisclosed income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export, 216ITR 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…