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.

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Starlight System (I) LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2167/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, C.Circle-3(4), Vs. Starlight System (I) Roomno1915,19Th Floor, Llp, 5Th Floor Sunteck Air India Bldg, Centre 37-40, Nariman Point, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400021. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Acifs0005M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dr.Kishore Dhule.CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri.Gaurav Kabra.AR
Section 68

…ness of the creditors have been discharged by the assessee. It is well settled Law that assessee noed not to prove source of the source. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 298 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT vs., Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). The A.O. has also accepted that entries in the account of the creditors are through RTGS. Therefore, there should not be any doubt on the explanation of the assessee. The A.O. noted that in assessment year under appeal assessee has…

Vedic Foundation Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4550/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Ms.Astha Chandra[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Vedic Foundation Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 43-B, Ff, Dilshad Garden, Ward-26(2), New Delhi-110093. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaci8590C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024 Order Per N.K.Billaiya, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 31, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Grievances Of The Assessee Read As Under:-

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…ld that when all the details have been given, non- appearance of the parities is irrelevant. (iii) Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Delhi), Shiv Dhoot Pearls 237 taxman 104 (Delhi) and Dwarkadhis Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Delhi), it was held that source of source of investment company is not required to be explained. (iv) In the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that if share application money is received by assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to Assessing Officer, then…

Vedic Foundation Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9170/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmavedic Foundation Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 26 (2), 43-B, 1St Floor, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 093. (Pan : Aaaci8590C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Order : 25.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…Industrial Resources Ltd. 397 ITR 106 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bombay); (iii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Delhi); (iv) Shiv Dhoot Pearls 237 taxman 104 (Delhi); (v) Dwarkadhis Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Delhi); (vi) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 7. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that assessee was requested to produce the Directors but they were not produced. He further submitted that these companies are bogus entry providing companies and whose identity, 6…

DCIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Luxora Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1025/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit-15(1)(2) V. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd 459, Ayakar Bhawan Unit No. 150, Avior Corporate Park Nirmal Galaxy Lbs Road M.K. Road, Mumbai- 40020 Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT-15(1)(2) v. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd 459, Ayakar Bhawan Unit No. 150, Avior Corporate Park Nirmal Galaxy LBS Road M.K. Road, Mumbai- 40020 Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080 PAN: AABCO3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. K.P. Devani Department Represented by : Ms. Smiti Samant Date of conclusion of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by th…

Sandeep Maloo, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsandeep Maloo Vs. Dcit-Cc-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afcpm7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…P a g e | 1 Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT-CC-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AFCPM7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Jayant Bhatt Respondent by : Kishore Dhule Date of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed aga…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

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

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…hare holders stood proved on record, amount of share application money 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" X. CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68-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 co…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…hare holders stood proved on record, amount of share application money 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" X. CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68-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 co…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…to prove the source of the source has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…to prove the source of the source has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…to prove the source of the source has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/…

DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 13(2)(2) v. M/s. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi JN, 1st Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road SV Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAHCS1597A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Prateek Jain Department Represented by : Richa Gulati Date of Hearing : 07.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHM…

Tyhe ITO-4(5), Indore vs. M/S. Urvashi World Wide P. Ltd., Indore

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

ITA 569/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri .P.D. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…see was only required to established the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the lender and to explain the source of fund was outside the domain and purview of the provision of section 68 (kindly refer CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) and DCIT vs. Sanwerwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 42 ITJ 298 (Trib. Indore). We submit that the respondent proved the source of the source besides the fact that all three lender companies had given unsecured loans had filed their Income tax return whereby identity was proved and genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness was als…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Jhaveri Mumbai ITAT (2015) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs CIT and 264 ITR 254(2003) Gauhati HC Another CIT Vs Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 Bombay HC CIT Vs Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Or…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Jhaveri Mumbai ITAT (2015) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs CIT and 264 ITR 254(2003) Gauhati HC Another CIT Vs Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 Bombay HC CIT Vs Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Or…

ACIT -1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Adhiraj Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1410/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ences in support of its contentions and established the genuineness of the transaction and nature and source of the receipts. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble Delhi High court judgments for the proposition of discharge of primary onus in the cases of Dwarkadhish 330 ITR 298 and Gangeshwari Metals 214 Taxman 423 Oasis Hospitalities 373 ITR 119.Thus application of section 68 by the A.O. on those receipts is not justified. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- u/s 68 is hereby directed to be deleted. The ground No. 2 and 3 of appeal is allowed.” 20. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has taken support of decisions…

ITO 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S Amkay Colonisers & Builders P Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 32/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…uestion of law arises in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. (Emphasis Supplied)" 10.7 The above referred judgment has been followed in another judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 298. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries (P.) Limited ([2017] 397 ITR 136). The relevant extract Page 10 of 16 M/s. Amkay Colonisers and Builders Pvt. ltd. Assessment year 2013-14 is reproduced below for ready reference: "The Tribunal has considered that the Assessee has produced on record…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…e r s s to o d p r o v e d o n record, amount of share application money 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" CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68— 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…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…e r s s to o d p r o v e d o n record, amount of share application money 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" CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68— 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…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…e r s s to o d p r o v e d o n record, amount of share application money 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" CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68— 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…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…e r s s to o d p r o v e d o n record, amount of share application money 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" CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68— 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…