CIT v. Gangeshwari Metals CIT V Precision Finance Pvt Ltd.

30 Taxmann.com 328High Court2013#2506 most cited

What is CIT v. Gangeshwari Metals CIT V Precision Finance Pvt Ltd. authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits is not justified if the assessee establishes the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd · Section 68 · cash credits · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · onus of proof · unexplained cash credit · share capital premium

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 149Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

paper companycash found during searchsection 5(2)(b)section 31share capital and share premiumcreditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourcesection 251(2)interest u/s 234csection 251(1)(a)live linkadmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Gangeshwari Metals CIT V Precision Finance Pvt Ltd.

ITO, WD-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Bsni Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 686/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147

…A.Y. 2012-2013 M/s. BSNL Commercial Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 686/KOL/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,.........................................................................Appellant Ward-10(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3 rd Floor, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- M/s. BSNI Commercial Pvt. Limited,...........................................Respondent Behind Jhawtalla Kali Temple, Teghoria, Kolkata-700 059 [PAN:AAECB 6746…

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. Mission Viejo Agro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4236/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, addition made u/s 68 of the Act was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: 18 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd. 30 Taxmann.com 328 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 361 ITR 220 (Del.) 11. It was further stated that the aforesaid amount was received by the depositor M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. from a company of Jain brothers and the addition of the same had already been made in the hands of M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. for the assessment year 2…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gold Mohur Profiles Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4102/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Aby T. Varkey & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Gold Mohur Profiles Ltd., Ward-12(2), Room No. 337, 31, Gujaranwala Town-Ii, C.R. Building, New Delhi G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacg2316G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : S/Sh. K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.04.2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Xv, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,55,000/- U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Ii. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,55,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act Despite The Settled Position Of Law That The Onus Was On The Assessee To Establish The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transaction Which Assessee Had Failed To Do. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs. 10,55,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act, Disregarding The Finding Of The Department That The Assessee Has Introduced Its Own Unaccounted Money In Its Bank As Accommodation Entries.

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/sh. K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Gold Mohur Profiles Ltd., Ward-12(2), Room No. 337, 31, Gujaranwala Town-II, C.R. Building, New Delhi G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi (PAN: AAACG2316G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by : S/sh. K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Date of hearing: 27.11.2015 Date of pronouncement: 18.12.2015 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated…

M/S. Brv Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2005-06 Brv Developers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 14(4) (Earlier Known As Prominent New Delhi Insurance Brokers P.Ltd.) C 52, Vivek Vihar Delhi 110 095 Pan: Aadcp 3196 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R
Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2005-06 BRV Developers Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 14(4) (Earlier known as Prominent New Delhi Insurance Brokers P.Ltd.) C 52, Vivek Vihar Delhi 110 095 PAN: AADCP 3196 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Amit Goel, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order dt. 22.01.2015 of Ld.CIT(A)-7, Delhi for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs.…

CIT vs. Globus Securities & Finance Pvt Ltd

ITA/409/2012HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 68

…s distinguishable as the assessee had filed affidavits of the present Directors of the share applicant companies affirming the payment made and the fact that the shares were allotted. 15. Similarly reference to CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. [2013] 30 Taxmann.com 328 (Delhi) is inappropriate as in the said case decision in Nova Finlease Pvt. Ltd (supra) was distinguished on facts, observing that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct any enquiry and had proceeded with folded hands as if it was for the assessee to produce all evidence and material. ITA 409/2012…