What is CIT v. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd. authority for?

For additions under Section 68 related to share capital and premium, the assessee must prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the investors, beyond merely disclosing their identities. Additions are permissible for amounts attributable to investors whose particulars remain unverified or who fail to respond to inquiries.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd.?

110 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd. (366 ITR 110), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 147, Section 68, Section 148, Section 151, Section 153A.

CIT v. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd. (366 ITR 110)

EASTERN AND WESTERN DRESSES TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-8(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1939/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Eastern & Western Dresses Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ward-8(1), No. 7, Shankar Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabce5153G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

…g adverse inference and adding amount in question to assessee's taxable income under section 68 6.12 CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court 2014 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 269 Under section 68 it is has (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 346 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2014] 366 ITR 110 (Delhi) sufficient for assessee to merely disclose address and identities of shareholders, it has to show genuineness of such individuals or entities 6.13 Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2015] 230 Taxman 268 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that certificate of incorporation, PAN etc., a…

AGS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,JASOLA DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2185/DEL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Ags Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H.No.47, Pocket Ii, Ward -1(4), Near Appollo Hospital, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110076. Pan-Aafca1795G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ction of incorporation details, PAN of Court of Delhi 361 ITR 02858 [Delhi] returns may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending fats predicate cover up. Hon’ble Empire Buildtech P Ltd, Merely because assessee had disclosed the identity Jurisdictional 366 ITR 110 [Delhi] of the investors, it can not be said that burden High Court of imposed upon it u's 68 has been discharged, Delhi particularly when investors not only did not submit any confirmation, but had concededly reported far less income than the amounts invested. Hon’ble Independent Media P For addition u/s 68 AO need not establish money Jurisdicti…

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 43/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

…mmissioner of Income tax- IV, New Delhi vs. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) iii. Naresh K. Pahuja vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2015] 54 taxmann.com 258 (Bombay) iv. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 110 (Delhi) v. A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) vi. Onassis Axles (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 44 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi) vii. Tarika Property Invest (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 51 taxmann.com 387 (SC) viii. CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal) Accordingly, the Ld.…

M/S. QNS CASTINGS PVT. LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3554/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

…w framed in the two appeals is answered in favour of Appellant Revenue and against the Respondent. Further reliance is put on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts in the cases of Titan Securities Itd. (2013) 357 ITR 184 (Delhi), Empire Builtech Pvt. Ltd. 366 ITR 110 (Delhi), Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi), Nipun Builders & Developers 350 ITR 407 (Delhi), Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 241 ITR 801, Ridhi Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 58 Taxman.com 367 (Delhi).’ 18. After going through the ratio of above decisions as referred above it is noted that on the facts of the present case…

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 1035/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Inder Paul Bansal &For Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 68

…he appeal has been closed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as per order dated 03-11-2023. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) for upholding the addition does not exists and is not applicable. b) CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court 120141 366 ITR 110 (Delhi). The decision in this case is also not applicable to the facts of present case as this case relates to share capital and premium thereon, the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the investors and some of the investors had responded and furnished particulars elicited and assessee disclosed identity of all the investors and in these…

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1034/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Inder Paul Bansal & Sri.Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Sri.Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 250

…an entries are generally masked to pump in black money into banking channels and such practices continue to plague Indian economy. In CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court [2014] 43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 346 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 366 ITR 110 (Delhi), it was held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to merely disclose address and identities of shareholders; it has to show genuineness of such individuals or entities. In Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd Vs CIT Calcutta High Court [2016] 385 ITR 399 (Cal)T it was held that when assesses failed to establish the bonafide of th…

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ,UTTARPRADESH vs. CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…256 CTR 34) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 1. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to merely disclose address and identities of shareholders; it has to show genuineness of such individuals or entities. 28 Vinod Kumar Gupta 4.12 DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE ON THE ISSUE OF HUMAN PROBABILITY AS ALL THE LENDERS HAVE SHOWN THE SAME MOBILE NOS IN…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “C”: DELHI. BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5064/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 The ACIT, Central M/s. KR Pulp and Papers Circle-19, Room No.104, vs., Ltd., 304, Roots Tower, ARA Centre, E-2, District Centre, Laxmi Jhandewalan, Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092 New Delhi. PAN AAACK5861C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, C.A. For Assessee : Ms. Monika Aggarwal, Advocate. Date of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.20…

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

…o. 494/Del/2016, CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal p.Ltd (2014) 361 ITR 10, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. SLP (CC) No. 15640 of 2012, dt. 17- 09-2012; CIT v. Harishbhai Raojibhai Patel HUF (2013) 219 Taxman 125 (mag). Distin guished CIT v. Empire Buitech (P) Ltd 366 ITR 110; Vam- Hi-Fashion Garments P. Ltd V. Asst CIT(2016) 151 TR(A) 408 (Del ‘ C’- Trib): 2016 Taxpub(DT) 1579(Del ‘ C’ -Trib), it has been held that Assessee discharge primary onus to prove that credit entry was not accommodation entry. In the case of Yash Developers v. DCIT (2018) 159 TR(A) 416 (Mum- Trib): 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4765(Mum-Trib), it has been…

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

…n.com 458, 220 Taxman (165) 14. CIT vs. Frostair (P.) Ltd. (26 taxmann.com 11, 210 Taxman 221) 15. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/(2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi/(2013) 263 CTR 456 (Delhi). 16. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) 17. CIT Vs Focus Exports (P.) Ltd (51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi)/£2015] 228 Taxman I would also like to rely on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Jan Sampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 384 (Delhi) wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that " though it is the obligation of the Assessing officer to conduct proper s…

JEEVAN POLYMERS (P) LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 93/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sri A. V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Sri R. Mujumdar, DR

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

…207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) where Honble Delhi High Court held that: amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P,) Ltd (366 ITR 110) where Hon 'ble Delhi High Court held that u/ s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to me-ely disclose address and identities of shareholders; it has to show genuineness of such individuals or entities. CIT vs. Empire Builtch (P) Ltd.. (366 ITR 110) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to merely disc…