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.

Im.Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As M/S.Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. IM Media Pvt. ACIT Circle 16(1), Ltd. (Now known as Aayakar Bhavan, M/s. Saraswathi M.K. Road, Media Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 411, Embassy Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AABCI 6694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2020 O…

Rukmani Agencies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cent.Cir-5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2562/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmarukmani Agencies Private Vs. D.C.I.T., Limited, Central Circle-5(1), 4Th Floor, Silver Metropolis, 19Th Floor, Air India Jaicoach Compound, Building, Nariman Point, Opposite Bimbisar Nagar, Mumbai-400021. Western Express, Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. Pan/Gir No.Aaacr 4998 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the additions made
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…f share 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" 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…

Meenu Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 8333/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiita.No.8333/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Meenu Kapoor, 819 Katra Neel, The Acit, Circle-47(1), Chandni Chowk, Vs., Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi. Pan Aajpk6319D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.K. Singhal, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 Order Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. This Appeal By Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Dated 03.09.2019, For The A.Y. 2016-2017, Challenging The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.10,20,45,840/- On Account Of Unexplained Loan Under Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 68

…refore, A.O. could not draw any adverse inference against the assessee. We may also note here that in the Law assessee need not to prove source of the source as is held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., [211] 330 ITR 298 (Del.) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Zaffar Ahmed & Co. 30 taxmann.com 269 (All.). The assessee however, in the present case has even proved source of the source of the creditors. Therefore, there is no question of considering it to be unexplained credits in the hands of the assessee. The A.O. suspected the loan amou…

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5133/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…f his arguments, relied heavily on the order of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2208) 216 CTR 195(SC), CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1613 of 2014 (Bom- HC), CIT vs. Haresh D Mehta 407 ITR 492, CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298( Delhi HC). 10 Varad Vinayak Estates P. Ltd. ITA No.5820/MUM/2016 & ITA No.5133/MUM/2017 & CO No.166 & 167/Mum/2019 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 8. After hearing both the parties and perused the materials on record, we observe that the undisputed facts are that the assessee was incorporated on 19th September 2008 and this was the first…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5820/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…f his arguments, relied heavily on the order of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2208) 216 CTR 195(SC), CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1613 of 2014 (Bom- HC), CIT vs. Haresh D Mehta 407 ITR 492, CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298( Delhi HC). 10 Varad Vinayak Estates P. Ltd. ITA No.5820/MUM/2016 & ITA No.5133/MUM/2017 & CO No.166 & 167/Mum/2019 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 8. After hearing both the parties and perused the materials on record, we observe that the undisputed facts are that the assessee was incorporated on 19th September 2008 and this was the first…

Shri Nareshbhai V Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT-33(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4912/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…d also held that similar was the position in the case of other loan creditors and finally dismiss the appeal by observing and holding as under: “Appellant has relied on CTT v Lovely Exports P Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC),CITv. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2010] 330 ITR 298/194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) and other such cases. I have gone through the cases cited by the appellant. In the of cases relied by the appellant the Courts have held that once documents like PAN card, bank account details or details from the bankers were given by the assessee, onus shifts upon the Assessing Officer and it is on him to reach the 4 Shri N…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kvf Securities (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Cross-Objection of the Assessee allowed and appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 5731/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: And Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ee relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., Victor Electrodes Ltd., [2010] 42 DTR 152 (Del.) and CIT vs., Winstral Petrochemicals (P) Ltd., [2010] 233 CTR 392 (Del.) as well as CIT vs., Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd., [2010] 45 DTR 281 (Del.). Several other case Law were also relied upon. The Ld. CIT(A) asked the A.O. to file remand report. However, no remand report was furnished. Reminder was further issued and ultimately, remand report Dated 13.12.2013 was received from the A.O. In the remand report A.O. has reproduced the contentions of earlier remand report and also attached…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5269/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3742/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3741/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5268/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5267/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5266/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5265/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5264/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3746/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3745/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) 84. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses 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…

M/S. Sms Smelters Limited, Naharlagun vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3, Guwahati

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

ITA 96/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 80l

…s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR (St.) 5 (S.C.) (iv) C.I.T. V/s. Sameer Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) (v) C.I.T. V/s. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 289 (Delhi) (vi) C.I.T. V/s. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) (vii) C.I.T. V/s. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) ITA Nos. 93-96/Gau/2017 & 91,69,76-77/Gau/17 39-40/Gau/2017 M/s SMS Smelters Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Gau &JUD Cement Ltd. v. ACIT Cir-Shill. Page 11 In view of the above also, the addition made in respect of share capital and share premium cannot be sustained. This…