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.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited, Banderdewa

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 84/GTY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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) In view of the above also, the addition made in respect of share capital and share premium cannot be sustained. This ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed.” 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) ha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited, Banderdewa

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 83/GTY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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) In view of the above also, the addition made in respect of share capital and share premium cannot be sustained. This ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed.” 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) ha…

Income Tax Officer 12(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Cymbal Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-12(1)(4) M/S Cymbal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145A, B-204, Kesar Baug, L.T. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Borivali (East), Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400092. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaecc7675C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar (AR)
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…section 68 is bad in law and deserve to be deleted. 8 ITA No. M/s Cymbal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 5. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Private Ltd (330 ITR 298 Delhi), wherein it was held that where assessee proves the identity of the creditor by providing their PAN and shows the transaction is through banking channel, then the onus to prove the act contrary would ship to the revenue. On the decision of honorable Supreme Court in case of CIT Versus Lovely Exports Private Ltd (216 CTR 195), wherein it…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…ld that the money belongs to B. ITA Nos. 1077 to 1081/Del/2019 35 There would be in such a case no direct nexus between the facts found and the conclusion drawn therefrom.” 38.1 That in the case of CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd, reported in [2011] 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “8. 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 genuinene…

P.S.Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 3229/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

P.S.Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 3228/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

P.S.Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 3227/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

P.S.Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 3226/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2694/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2693/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2689/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2688/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2687/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…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…

Iskon Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ambala Cantt vs. ITO, Ward- 12(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 148Section 68

…n 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of my findings, I rely upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146, CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220, CIT vs. Dwarakadheesh Invesment Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 and CIT vs. Winstrall Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 603. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification to sustain the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, in the absence of any evidence on record, no addition could be made with respect to alleged commission pai…

ACIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…hereabouts of these parties as the learned AO has been empowered with all powers to enforce the attendance of income tax assessees. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I T. vs. Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298, wherein it was held as follows: "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 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 genuinenes…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4875/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) Achal Investment Ltd vs CIT (268 ITR 211) (Del) (9) CIT vs Dolphin Canpack Ltd (204 CTR 50) (Del) (10) CIT vs Glocom Impex (P) Ltd. (205 CTR 571) (Del) (11) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4874/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) Achal Investment Ltd vs CIT (268 ITR 211) (Del) (9) CIT vs Dolphin Canpack Ltd (204 CTR 50) (Del) (10) CIT vs Glocom Impex (P) Ltd. (205 CTR 571) (Del) (11) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4873/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…) Achal Investment Ltd vs CIT (268 ITR 211) (Del) (9) CIT vs Dolphin Canpack Ltd (204 CTR 50) (Del) (10) CIT vs Glocom Impex (P) Ltd. (205 CTR 571) (Del) (11) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP)…

Shri Sunil Sojatia, Indore vs. The ACIT Circle -2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 312/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…,329. Before giving gift to the assessee, she has done withdrawals in cash on multiple occasions. On 05.11.2009 itself, she had done withdrawal of Rs. 9,00,000. Her household expenses were met by her children only. c. In CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd 330 ITR 298 it was held that "just because the lenders were unable to explain the cash deposit in their account, does not give right to revenue to invoke sec 68 against the authority, it is settled law that assessee need not prove 'source of source' d. Similarly, as per the locus classics in DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2003] 127 TAXMAN 523 (GUJ.) it was held t…

Shri Prabhat Sojatia, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 310/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54BSection 68

…,329. Before giving gift to the assessee, she has done withdrawals in cash on multiple occasions. On 05.11.2009 itself, she had done withdrawal of Rs. 9,00,000. Her household expenses were met by her children only. c. In CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd 330 ITR 298 it was held that "just because the lenders were unable to explain the cash deposit in their account, does not give right to revenue to invoke sec 68 against the authority, it is settled law that assessee need not prove 'source of source' d. Similarly, as per the locus classics in DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2003] 127 TAXMAN 523 (GUJ.) it was held t…