How many judgments cite CIT v. Electro Polychem Ltd.?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Electro Polychem Ltd. (294 ITR 661), spanning 2012 to 2024.

CIT v. Electro Polychem Ltd.

294 ITR 661High Court2007#6624 most cited

What is CIT v. Electro Polychem Ltd. authority for?

Share application money received by a company, even if the subscribers are found to be not genuine, cannot be treated as the undisclosed income of the company under Section 68.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Electro Polychem Ltd. · Section 68 · share application money · unexplained cash credit · genuineness of transaction · undisclosed income · person · company

Issues it is cited on

genuineness of the transaction section 133(6)unexplained cash credit undisclosed income section 68 person company total income business document

Judgments citing CIT v. Electro Polychem Ltd.

Radiant Commercial & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 657/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…T vs. Steller Investment Ltd. in [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Del) ii) DCIT vs. Gandhi Capital Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2922 /Ahd/ 2016 iii) M/s V.R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA NO. 871/Mad/2016 (Madras High Court) iv) CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. in [2007] 294 ITR 661 v) PCIT vs. Surya Alloys Industries Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 342 (Cal) vi) CIT vs. Lovely Exports in Application No. 11993 of 2007 dated 11.01.2008 5 I.T.A. No.657/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Radiant Commercial & Investments Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts , the appellate order may kindl…

Nav Consec P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3258/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Dr Mahesh Akhade, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Surana, CA (written

Section 68

…ty of the share holders and the liability of the company to shareholders has been established and, therefore, the allotment of shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. 22. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electro Polychem Ltd., reported in (2007) 294 ITR 661, cited on behalf of the appellant, a Division Bench of this Court held that in case of cash credit of share application money even if it were to be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, the amount of share capital would in no circumstances be regard as undisclosed income of the company. 23. In Commissioner…

Rivet Electrical Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…l/Premium cannot be regarded as undisclosed income. High Court deleted addition made for share premium u/s 68 ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2478 (2018) 08 HC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electro Polychem Ltd. (2.007) 294 ITR 661,Commissioner of Income Tax v. Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal /ITAT) in upholding the addition confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee assessee was a Priv…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…f Lovely Export 216 CTR 195 and also the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd 307 ITR 334 are relevant on this issue. It was held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. 294 ITR 661 and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jaya Securities Ltd 166 Taxman 7 that no addition can be made on account of share application money even if subscriber to capital are not genuine. The above said judgements were challenged by the Department by way of SLP before Supreme Court of India and SLP has been dismissed by Supreme Court in bo…

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2009-10 M/s. Davalagiri Property Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Developers Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Prerana Chambers, Circle 2[1][2], No.26, 2nd Floor, Bangalore. Nehru Nagar Main Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 048. PAN: AACCD 3575A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2022 O R D E R Per…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…of Lovely Export 216 CTR 195 and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt Ltd 307 ITR 334 are relevant on this issue. It was held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. 294 ITR 661 and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jaya Securities Ltd 166 Taxman 7 that no addition can be made on account of share application money even if subscriber to capital are not genuine. The above said judgements were challenged by the Department by way of SLP before Supreme Court of India and SLP has been dismissed by Supreme Court in bo…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi). Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of commissioner of income tax v/s GP International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax V/s Electro Polychem Ltd. (20047) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). Hon'b;e Rajasthan High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s AKJ Granites P.Ltd.(2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax v/s Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. (2011) 51 DTR 74 (Delhi). 19. It is a settled law that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to confront the assessee with…

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

…ITR 334 (Delhi). ii. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. GP International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H). iii. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Electro Polychem Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). iv. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. AKJ Granites P.Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) v. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. (2011) 51 DTR 74 (Dellhi). Sec.69 places the burden of proof on the tax payer to explain the nature and source…

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

ITO, Ward - 13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gouri Nandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 2102/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 80G

…ity of the share holders and the liability of the company to shareholders has been established and, therefore, the allotment of shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. 22. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electro Polychem Ltd., reported in (2007) 294 ITR 661, cited on 8 I.T.A. No. 2102/Kol/2017 C.O. No. 120/Kol/2017 M/s. Gouri Nandan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. behalf of the appellant, a Division Bench of this Court held that in case of cash credit of share application money, even if it were to be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, the amount of share capital woul…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…7 ITR 334 (Delhi). ii Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. GP International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H). iii. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Electro Polychem Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). iv. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. AKJ Granites P.Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) v. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. (2011) 51 DTR 74 (Delhi). Sec. 69 places the burden of proof on the tax payer to explain the nature and source of an…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…t from the learned Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s. V R Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (Tax Case (Appeal) NO. 246 of 2017) and another decision in CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. (294 ITR 661). In reply, the learned DR explained that the learned Assessing Officer vide letter dated 5.03.2015 called the details, which were not filed and, thus, there is a failure on the part of the assessee and again show cause notice was given on 19.03.2015. It was explained that the finding of the learned CIT(A) is based upon additional evidence f…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xo Infotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Appeal of the Department is

ITA 3342/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L.P.Sahu[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Xo Infotech Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Now Known As M/S. Saral Mining Ltd.), 304, Saffron Vs. Ward-7(3), Room No.306, Building, Panchvati To Ambawadi Road, Ambawadi C.R.Building, New Delhi. Ellisbeidge,Ahmedabad- 380006.Pan-Aaaxx0059K (Appellant) (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri Vijay Varma, Cit-D.R. By Assessee : Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] XO Infotech Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Now known as M/s. Saral Mining Ltd.), 304, Saffron vs. Ward-7(3), Room No.306, Building, Panchvati to Ambawadi Road, Ambawadi C.R.Building, New Delhi. Ellisbeidge,Ahmedabad- 380006.PAN-AAAXX0059K (Appellant) (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri Vijay Varma, CIT-D.R. By Assessee : Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate Date of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appe…

M/S Karni Maa International, Jaipur vs. The ITO, Ward 6 (2), Jaipur

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

ITA 527/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)

Section 144Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 527/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 cuke M/s Karni Maa International Income Tax Officer, Vs. 64, Ayuwan Singh, Nagar, Ward 6(2), Maharani, Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHFK 6082 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT) l…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Khushboo Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3647/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148Section 68

…of Lovely Export 216 CTR 195 and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt Ltd 307 ITR 334 are relevant on this issue. It was held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. 294 ITR 661 and Hon'ble Allahabad High 11 M/s. Khshboo Exports Pvt. Ltd. Court in the case of Jaya Securities Ltd 166 Taxman 7 that no addition can be made on account of share application money even if subscriber to capital are not genuine. The above said judgements were challenged by the Department by way of SLP before Supreme Court of India and SLP has b…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shri K.V.Rmadoss, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1754/CHNY/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Duraipandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 133(6)

…and CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd 216 ITA No.1754/Mds/2012. :- 7 -: CTR 195, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 and judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd 294 ITR 661. 6. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was appreciative of the above contentions. According to him, assessee was owning 15 acres of land in 168 Kaatoor Villge, Gudavasal (TK) in Thiruvarur Dist, Tamil Nadu and had regularly shown agricultural income in his returns. From the submissions of the assessee, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

CIT vs. Expo Globe India Ltd

ITA/1257/2011HC Delhi20 Jul 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 147

…ly Export 216 CTR 195 and also the judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 are relevant on this issue. It was held by Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. 294 ITR 661 and Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jaya Securities Ltd. 166 Taxman 7 that no addition can be made on account of share application money even if subscriber to capital are not genuine. The above said judgments were challenged by the Department by way of SLP before Supreme Court of India and SLP has been dismissed by Supreme Cou…