CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

330 ITR 298High Court2011#410 most cited

What is CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

218

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. · 330 ITR 298 · Section 68 · source of source · onus of proof · share application money · cash credit · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · unexplained cash credit · addition u/s 68

Also reported as

239 CTR 478

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 132(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceonus of proofcreditworthiness of the creditorshare application moneyshare capital and share premiumretracted statementaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionsection 132(1)section 133(6)unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

M/S. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

ITA 2159/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwanikumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt.Shafali Swaroop, CIT-DR &
Section 153CSection 234ASection 68

…the source of creditor M/s. Double Star Builders Pvt. Ltd., who allegedly took entry from Jain Brothers through Today Group of cases which is not permissible in Law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dwaradhish Investment (P.) Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Zafa Ahmed & Co. vs. CIT 30 Taxmann.com 269 held that assessee need not to prove the source of the source. Thus, the condition precedent for issuing notice under section 153C and assessing 49 ITA.No.2159/Del./2014 M/s. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi. or re-assessing the income of su…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/55/2017HC Delhi25 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 68

…tablish that they were bonafide creditors and that the findings of the AO and the CIT(A), that the Assessee has used these creditors to route his own unexplained money or incomes, was incorrect. Mr. Aggarwal relies upon CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (hereafter ‘Dwarkadhish’) to submit that once the initial onus upon the Assessee is discharged, the onus shifts on the Revenue to challenge the same. Mr. Aggarwal further submits that for any income to be taxed, the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the transactions were not genuine. In the submission of Mr. Aggarwal, a mere suspicion,…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…5 ITR 294 Bio-Tech. (P.) (Delhi) (para 8), 9 M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care xvii. CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220/[2012] 206 Taxman 254/19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi) (para 8), xviii. CIT v. Dwarkadhish Capital (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 298/[2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) (paras 9, 10), xix. CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296/[2011] 202 Taxman 548/14 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi) (paras 9, 10), xx. Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 440/30 taxmann.com 267 (All.) (paras 9, 10), xxi. Anil Rice Mills v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 236/[2005] 149 Taxman 313 (All.) (paras 9, 10)…

Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Krishna Sheet Processors P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4003/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 68

…tment Ltd (251 ITR 263)(SC) (c) CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012)(248 CTR (Del) 33) (d) CIT Vs. STL Extrusion P Ltd (2011)(333 ITR 269)(MP) (e) CIT Vs. Arunananda Textiles P Ltd (2011)(333 ITR 116)(Kar) (f) CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd (2011)(330 ITR 298)(Delhi) (g) ITO Vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd (ITA No.2821/Del/2009 dt 1.4.15) 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the ld CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that identical addition made in AY 2009- 5 M/s. Krishna Sheet Processors P. Ltd. 10 has been deleted by his predecessor. He also noticed that the assessee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 971/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

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

…inctive numbers of the shares issued by the appellant to the 9 share applicant Companies have also been filed. Thus from the above details and placing reliance on the latest decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298, CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 & CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitality Private Limited in ITA No. 2093 of2010 (Supra) and Winstrol Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) in which various earlier decisions of High Court and that of the S.C. has been considered, it is observed that the appellant has discharged the initial burden placed on it to prove the…

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

…inctive numbers of the shares issued by the appellant to the 9 share applicant Companies have also been filed. Thus from the above details and placing reliance on the latest decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298, CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 & CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitality Private Limited in ITA No. 2093 of2010 (Supra) and Winstrol Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) in which various earlier decisions of High Court and that of the S.C. has been considered, it is observed that the appellant has discharged the initial burden placed on it to prove the…

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, therefore, in the light of the judgments of Delhi High Court in Lovely Exports (P.) (supra), CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 603/199 Taxman 135 (Mag.)/10 taxmann.com 137 (Delhi) and CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 298/[2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) and other cases, addition was not justified and not in accordance with law. ITA 800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 62 10. Cross objections filed by the assessee were not pressed and in paragraph 20 of the impugned order it is specifically recorded that the validity of notice under Section 148 was not argued by the respon…

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

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

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, therefore, in the light of the judgments of Delhi High Court in Lovely Exports (P.) (supra), CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 603/199 Taxman 135 (Mag.)/10 taxmann.com 137 (Delhi) and CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 298/[2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) and other cases, addition was not justified and not in accordance with law. ITA 800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 62 10. Cross objections filed by the assessee were not pressed and in paragraph 20 of the impugned order it is specifically recorded that the validity of notice under Section 148 was not argued by the respon…

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

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 68

…s & Investment Ltd. (429/2003), judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 and judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Private Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) . 8.5 It was further submitted that despite the assessee having discharged its initial onus to establish the identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, the addition has been sustained primarily on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish the source of the source. The learn…

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

…ould amount to calling upon him to establish the source of the source. Therefore, additions in respect of the entries in the names of said creditors cannot be sustained. Decision of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. - 330 ITR 298 was also relied on by ld. AR, wherein it is held as under: Revenue has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person- Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the 'source of source'-In the instant case, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition holding that the assessee has been a…

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

…ould amount to calling upon him to establish the source of the source. Therefore, additions in respect of the entries in the names of said creditors cannot be sustained. Decision of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. - 330 ITR 298 was also relied on by ld. AR, wherein it is held as under: Revenue has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person- Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the 'source of source'-In the instant case, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition holding that the assessee has been a…

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

…ould amount to calling upon him to establish the source of the source. Therefore, additions in respect of the entries in the names of said creditors cannot be sustained. Decision of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. - 330 ITR 298 was also relied on by ld. AR, wherein it is held as under: Revenue has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person- Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the 'source of source'-In the instant case, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition holding that the assessee has been a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Mayur Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1160/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…proof or acceptable explanation by the assessee." 5. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. (2011) 238 CTR (Del) 402: (2011) 333 ITR 119 7 6. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dwarkadhish Investment(P) Ltd. (211) 239 CTR (Del) 478: (2011) 330 ITR 298.” 7.2 From the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidences as well as the decisions renderred by the Hon’ble Jurisidctional High Court. We further find that the issue in dispute is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court dated 1…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Empire Builtech Pvt Ltd

The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent

ITA/493/2013HC Delhi27 Jan 2014
Section 133Section 68

…ome of them did but did not fully satisfy the AO, would not be a matter of concern to the assessee. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) to the following effect: - “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in Section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN number or income tax assessment number and shows the genuineness of tran…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

ITA-341/2012HC Delhi28 Nov 2013
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A(1)Section 68

…2013 (Del)., CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (2) AD (Delhi) 378, CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., ITA No.232 of 2012 dated 22-11-2012, CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.), CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del), CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors, (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Del)., CIT vs. Gourdin Herbals India Ltd., ITA No.665 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009 (Del.), CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., (2010) 329 ITR 271 (Del), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del), Madhuri Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and Ors., ITA No.110…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

ITA/341/2012HC Delhi28 Nov 2013
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A(1)Section 68

…2013 (Del)., CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (2) AD (Delhi) 378, CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., ITA No.232 of 2012 dated 22-11-2012, CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.), CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del), CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors, (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Del)., CIT vs. Gourdin Herbals India Ltd., ITA No.665 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009 (Del.), CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., (2010) 329 ITR 271 (Del), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del), Madhuri Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and Ors., ITA No.110…

CIT vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt Ltd

ITA/1019/2011HC Delhi22 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…f r Reserved on: 14^'' August, 2013 % Date of Decision : 22"^* November, 2013 b $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1019/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus NR PORTFOLIO PVT LTD. Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. RishabhKapoor, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. For detailed order see ITA 1018/2011, Commissioner ofIncome Tax VsNR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. pronounced today. NOVEMBER 22"^ 2013 NA —. (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE 'Ojud , — (SANJEEV SAC…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt Ltd

ITA/1018/2011HC Delhi22 Nov 2013
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…ITA Nos. 1018/2011 & 1019/2011 Page 1 of 24 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1018/2011 Reserved on: 14th August, 2013 % Date of Decision : 22nd November, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus NR PORTFOLIO PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocates. + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1019/2011…