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 366,314 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.

ACIT Cir-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…ies and not for other creditors like assessee for receipt of loan/borrowing which was with effect from 01st April 2013], which was held to be applicable prospectively and not have any retrospective effect. (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited (394 ITR 680) [Bom HC]: “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 the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…ies and not for other creditors like assessee for receipt of loan/borrowing which was with effect from 01st April 2013], which was held to be applicable prospectively and not have any retrospective effect. (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited (394 ITR 680) [Bom HC]: “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 the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the…

Smt. Rashmi Sanjeev Bangad, Gamdhidham vs. The ITO-Ward-1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 62/RJT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 68o

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, राजकोट"यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 62/Rjt/2020 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2008-09 Smt. RashmiSanjeevBangad ITO 411, Kalpesh S. Doshi& Co. Vs. Ward-1, Cosmo Complex, Near Mahila Gandhidham College Circle, Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 PAN: AIVPB6190M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 14/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E…

Nuland Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Offiers, Ward -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nuland Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan:Aaccn5235D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8.5.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. There Is A Delay Of 545 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid. After Hearing Both The Sides & Following The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Write Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020 Order Dated 10.01.2022 Wherein It Is Held That The Period From 15.3.2020 Till

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…ITA No 23 of 2022 Nuland Infrastructure P Ltd Hyderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nuland Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(2) PAN:AACCN5235D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 02/08/2022 Date of pronouncement: 04/08/2022 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed again…

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

…ccepted the paid up share capital in principle and made addition of share premium is contrary to the facts and referred to the judicial decisions. Further the Ld. AR relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision of CIT Vs. GaganDeep Infrastructure Pvt ltd (394 ITR 680) held as under: section 68 of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share Capital) - Assessment year 2008- pg - Whether proviso to section 68 introduced by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1- 4.2013. Would not have retrospective effect - Held, ves - Whether where assessee-company had established identity, genuineness and capacity of sharehold…

M/S. Sekhani Industries Pvt Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Mangal Cotton Mills Pvt.Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Sekani Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(2), (Formerly Known As Mangal Cotton Mills Vs Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.), 62, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad- 380001. Pan : Aabcm0470G (Appellant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Shah, Ca : Shriv. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Revenue By सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Shah, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Sekani Industries Pvt. Ltd. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), (Formerly known as Mangal Cotton Mills Vs Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.), 62, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad- 380001. PAN : AABCM0470G (Appellant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri S. R. Shah, CA : ShriV. K. Singh, Sr. DR Revenue by सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH Captioned appeal fil…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur vs. M/S. 21St Century Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 207/NAG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri MahaveerAtal, CAFor Respondent: ShriPiyushKohle, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56

…Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that 13 ITA207/NAG/2017 ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR VS 21st CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. NAGAPUR the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from…

Axykno Capital Services Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Nagpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale (JCIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…is not sufficient. The A0 is bound to conduct scrutiny of documents produced by the assessee and cannot rest content by placing reliance on the report of the investigation wing. 10.9. Reliance further placed on CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infastructure Pvt Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bombay HC) wherein it has been held that the proviso to s. 68 (which creates an obligation on theissuing Co. to explain the source of share capital & premium) hasbeen introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from01.04.2013 and does not have retrospective effect. Prior thereto, as per Lovely Exports 317 ITR 218 (SC), if the A0 regards the S…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अपील सं./ITA No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/s Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 ft. Ring Road, Rajkot. PAN: AAECR8684A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.D.R Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22/03/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement:27/04…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1371/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates w…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1370/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates w…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1369/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates w…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1368/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates w…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates w…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1366/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates w…

Kamla Lamdmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1365/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…showing that they had sufficient funds for investing in the shares of the Assessee. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 80 Taxmann 272 (Bombay) and the order of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC). 4] We have considered the submissions. 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates w…

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Vs. DCIT,CC-2(1) Luxora Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. 1207, 12th Floor Prathishta Bhawan ‘A’ Wing,O2 commercial 8th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Building, 23-24, Minerva Industrial Estte, Off.LBS Road, Mulund(W) Mumbai-400 080 PAN : AABCL2854K (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri K.P.Dewani Assessee by Department by Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan Date of Hearing 16.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is dir…

ITO Ward-4(1)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Valley Comtrade Pvt Ltd ( Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R with Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 13(1)(d)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARATHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2034/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/s. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier known as Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli BMW Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. PAN: AADCS3553N And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 68/SRT/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/s. Valley Comtrade Pvt.…

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Classic Creations Impex Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4585/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 4585/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Cc – 7(3), M/S Classic Creations Impex Pvt. Ltd. बिाम K-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tex Centre R. No. 655, Aaykar Bhavan M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Next To Hdfc Bank), Chandivali, / Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-3350-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir Singh – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 12/04/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 19/12/2016. The Sole Ground Urged By The Revenue Read As Under: - In The Circumstances & On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,23,50,000/- Made By The Ao As Unexplained Cash Credit Received From M/S. Emma Auto Ancillary Pvt. Ltd. In The Form Of Share

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…he attention was also drawn to the fact that the share- application money received by the assessee was invested in another group entity for an ongoing project. As per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Ltd. (80 Taxmann.com 272), the assessee was not required to prove the source of the source since amendment to Sec.68 was introduced only w.e.f. AY 2013-14. Reliance was placed on many other decisions to support the fact that onus casted upon assessee, in terms of requirement of Sec.68, stood discharged and therefore, no addition could be sustained u/s 68. 5. The s…

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3502/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…be sustained u/s 68. This legal proposition is duly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5] as followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272] & subsequently in CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Private Limited [88 Taxmann.com 502]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court followed the said decision in Pr. CIT V/s Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd. [107 Taxmann.com 84] against which revenue’s Special Leave petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 107 Taxmann.com 85. Similar…