CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 680High Court2017#259 most cited

What is CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

303

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. · Gagandeep Infrastructure · 394 ITR 680 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · source of source · share capital · share premium · creditworthiness · genuineness of transaction · assessee's onus · burden of proof

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 272247 Taxmann 245

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 131Section 148Section 142(1)Section 147Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceshare capital and share premiumcreditworthiness of the creditorsummons under section 131share application moneypermanent account numbersection 56(2)(viib)paper companyaddition under section 68genuineness of the transactionaddition u/s 68unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

ITO Ward 11(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Hitesh Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1512/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1512/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ed is very much justified. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Curt in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported 4 I.T.A. No. 1512/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Hitesh Distributors Pvt. Ltd in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay). He relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) as well as a number of case-law in support of his contentions. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case-law cited, we hold as follows:- 6. This is not a c…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ya Pvt. Ltd. ((supra)) is concerned, the ld. counsel explained that the issue before the Kolkata bench was whether the amendment is prospective in nature which has been replied by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680(Bom.). The Ld. counsel relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Arceli Reality Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (ITA No.6492/Mum/2016), order dated 21/04/2017. It was contended that the Ld. Assessing Officer merely made the addition on the basis of rejection of an application by FIPB unit made by M/s Prism Informatics Ltd. for…

DCIT- 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jagaon Franchisee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2998/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 68

…sraeay ache sitar, Hag cardio, 27 .Aas! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI ay of. Haars, WaT Wess, & FAT Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NO.2998/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT-3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6 Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Conn Vs. Jalgaon Franchisee Pvt Ltd. 42-B Wing, Mittal Tower, Free Press Journal Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (trated /Revenue) (faAeutat /Assessee) P.A. No.AACCJ2423R tered HH 3 A / Revenue by Shri Abhijit Patankar-CIT-DR aid At 3 B/ Assessee by | Shri K…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhakti Homes P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1233/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit-15(1)(2), M/S Bhakti Homes Pvt. Ltd. Room No.483,A, 4Th Floor, 301, Sitaram Kutir, Plot No. 28, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Sector-21, Nerul, Road, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400706 Pan: Aaccb6937C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri T.A. Khan (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi With Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri T.A. Khan (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi with Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke (AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(4)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT-15(1)(2), M/s Bhakti Homes Pvt. Ltd. Room No.483,A, 4th Floor, 301, Sitaram Kutir, Plot No. 28, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Sector-21, Nerul, Road, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400706 PAN: AACCB6937C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri T.A. Khan (CIT-DR) Respondent by : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi with Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke (AR) Date of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. T…

M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1I, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 975/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…He submitted that this is against the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl. CIT reported in 368 ITR 001(Bom.) and in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680. 3 I.T.A. No. 975/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ms/. Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd The ld. D/R, on the other hand, relies on the judgment of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kolkata, in ITA No. 1104/Kol/2014, dt. 30.07.2015 and on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisd…

Anusha Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Anusha Trading Private Ito 9(1)(3), Mumbai. Limited, Nityanand Sadan, Plot- बिधम/ 133, Bardwadi, Cross Lane, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahca5317L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ito 9(1)(3), M/S Anusha Trading Private Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Limited, Nityanand Sadan, Plot- बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 133, Bardwadi, Cross Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400058 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahca5317L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-(1) Vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure P a g e | 9 ITA Nos. 5754 & 5183/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Anusha Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-9(1)(3) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). The ld. A.R further submitted that as the assessee company had duly produced substantial documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of the transactions, therefore, the burden shifted on the revenue authorities to disprove and dislodge the said claim of the assessee. The…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 MOTI ADHESIVES P. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 17(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI – 110 085 (PAN: AAACM9114E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 26.3.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…d upon by the assessee, the 19 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee in the light of the facts of the present case and find that the Hon’ble High Court categorically observed that the Proviso to section 68 has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 wef 01-04-2013 is applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards. The Court further observed that the Parliame…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, M/s Goldmohur Design and Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AADCG1613M Shri Abhijit Patankar-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा…

Pratik Syntex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6690/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Pratik Syntex Private Ito 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar V. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaecp3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 143(3)

…e authorities below. The said documents are placed in paper book filed by the assessee with the tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195(SC), decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Apeak Infotech reported in (2017) 397 ITR 0148(Bom.) , decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CI…

M/S Lns Industries Ltd., Durg(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1(1), Bhilai

ITA 110/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, D.R
Section 68

…A.Y. 2013-14 and therefore not applicable to the subject assessment year as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 5784/Mum/2011 which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in 394 ITR 680. 10. Now let us examine the documentary evidences brought on record an examined by the revenue authorities. The statement showing remittance details is as under:- LNS Industries Ltd. Statement showing remittance from Sh. Sunil Agrawal in F.Y. 2011-12 Foreign Remitter Bank Details Amount Received in Sh. Sunil Agarwal Payment from Sh. Sunil Agra…

Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

…es, the Supreme Court held that the same cannot be considered in the hands of the company. ii. The requirement of identifying the shareholder, creditworthiness and genuiness has been reiterated by Bombay High Court in the case of the Gagan Deep Infrastructure 394 ITR 680 after applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports. As the above order and has not been discharged by the assessee, reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports is misplaced. iii. Further contention of the assessee that in view of the time-limit for issue of notice under section 143…

ITO 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Robinsons Cargo & Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 117/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.117/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1), M/S. Robinsons Cargo & Logistics Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Canara Bank Building, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 15/17, Adi Marzan Path, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 9709 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Wagle सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 30.10.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: “Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,65,31,290/- Made U/S. 68 Of The Act On The Account Of Share Premium Charged By The Appellant Assessee Without

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Wagle
Section 565Section 68

…(b) and clause (c) of Explanation 1 to clause (23FB) of section 10; 11. The above provision is applicable from assessment year 2012-13. It has been held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom) that such amendment in section 68 by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 is effective from assessment year 2013-14 only. Hence, clearly addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) cannot be sustained for the assessment year 2012-13 which is the case here. In such factual background, the addition in this case has been rightly held by the ld. Commi…

Jasamrit Creatins P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Creations P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 6(3)(2) Flat No. 901, Building ‘B’ Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Vs. Ashok Tower, Near Itc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hotel, Parel, Mumbai 400017 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aabcj8511H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anju KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member M/s. Jasamrit Creations P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 6(3)(2) Flat No. 901, Building ‘B’ Room No. 503, 5th Floor Vs. Ashok Tower, Near ITC Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hotel, Parel, Mumbai 400017 Mumbai 400020 PAN – AABCJ8511H Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Anju Kisnadwala Respondent by: Ms. Pooja Swaroop Date of Hearing: 15.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 14.03.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alcon Biosciences P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1946/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ition merely on the basis of surmises and suspicion only on the basis of bank statements of share applicants and their concerns. In this regard relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd 1986 AIR 1849. Insofar as the arguments of the Ld.DR, that the name of two companies have been struck off by the ROC, the Ld.AR submitted letters from those companies stating that their names have been struck off by the R…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…therwise of addition made u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received was the subject-matter for consideration. The Hon'ble Tribunal, after taking note of and relying upon the aforesaid rulings in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. (394 ITR 680) and CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (333 ITR 100), was pleased to delete the disputed addition. " In the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (399 ITR 425 (Mad) the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the assessee cannot upon its investors to disclose all such business transactions they carried on in the immediate past and as to…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Citygold Education Research Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4742/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Income Tax Officer -9(2)(3) Citygold Education Room No. 601A, 6Th Floor, Research Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ackruti Trade Centre, 6Th Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Floor, Road No.7, Marol – Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aafca5195A

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: H.N Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…view of these facts and circumstances, once the AO has not rebutted the evidences, the AO cannot disbelieve the same. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom), wherein Hon’ble High Court had held as under : - (e) We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even…

Shree Laxmi Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5954/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

…ns from above 2 companies as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assessee, the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee in the light of the facts of the present case and find that the Hon’ble High Court categorically observed that the Proviso to section 68 has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 wef 01-04- 2013 is applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards. The Court further observed that the Parli…

ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Constructors P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3754/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…ITR 713(SC) (ii) Anand Ram Timber Industries Vs CCE ,Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 (SC) (iii) H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT 378 ITR 561(Bom) (iv) Sunil Prakash Vs ACIT ITA No. 6494/M/2014 (b) On addition under section 68 of Act (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd 349 ITR 680(Bombay), (ii) CIT Vs Orchard industries Private Ltd ITA 1433 of 2014(Bom), (iii) CIT Vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd ITA No. 169 of 2017(Del), ITA N0.3754, 3755,3756 & 2948/M/2017 Shreedham Construction (iv) CIT Vs Supertech Diamonds Tools (P) limited 44 taxman.com 460 (Raj) (v) CIT Vs Ashish International ITA No 4299 of 2009 (Bombay) (vi)…

Shreedham Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(3), Kalyan

ITA 2948/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…ITR 713(SC) (ii) Anand Ram Timber Industries Vs CCE ,Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 (SC) (iii) H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT 378 ITR 561(Bom) (iv) Sunil Prakash Vs ACIT ITA No. 6494/M/2014 (b) On addition under section 68 of Act (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd 349 ITR 680(Bombay), (ii) CIT Vs Orchard industries Private Ltd ITA 1433 of 2014(Bom), (iii) CIT Vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd ITA No. 169 of 2017(Del), ITA N0.3754, 3755,3756 & 2948/M/2017 Shreedham Construction (iv) CIT Vs Supertech Diamonds Tools (P) limited 44 taxman.com 460 (Raj) (v) CIT Vs Ashish International ITA No 4299 of 2009 (Bombay) (vi)…