CIT v. GP International Ltd.

325 ITR 25High Court2010#2565 most cited

What is CIT v. GP International Ltd. authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or unexplained share capital cannot be sustained if the assessee substantiates identity and genuineness of transactions, even with partial confirmations from Section 133(6) enquiries. Further, Section 41(1) applies only when a trading liability ceases or is written off, not merely due to lack of creditor confirmation while the liability remains in the books.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. GP International Ltd. · 325 ITR 25 · Section 68 cash credits · unexplained share capital · Section 133(6) enquiry · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness proof · Section 41(1) cessation of liability · liability written off · confirmation not filed

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 68Section 131

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 239section 65(b)section 181section 80ia(4)(iii)section 194qsection 293section 8oremission or cessation of liabilitysection 193section 65b(4)section 36(l)(iii)

Judgments citing CIT v. GP International Ltd.

Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat vs. DCIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 5878/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

…rd. We find that in appeal before the learned CIT(A) the assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. GP International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H). The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition in question, inter alia, by observing as under: “A perusal of the facts of the case reveal that the AO has added the said amount as it has been an outstanding balance for more than three years. If the appellant does not treat the liability to have ceased to exist or opt to write off the same, just be…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai vs. Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

…on the same preposition as observed in the decision of CIT vs. Gen Exports (supra). 12.5 In the same context, Ld AR also relied upon the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. Eco Auto Components P. Ltd (2017) 409 ITR 202 (P&H) CIT vs. GP International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 12.6 While carrying the arguments further, ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of ITAT, Raipur in the case of A.C. Strips Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 53/RPR/2020 dated 06.01.2023, wherein, under the similar circumstances as of the present case, it has been categorically held as under: “11. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid statutory pr…

Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

…on the same preposition as observed in the decision of CIT vs. Gen Exports (supra). 12.5 In the same context, Ld AR also relied upon the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. Eco Auto Components P. Ltd (2017) 409 ITR 202 (P&H) CIT vs. GP International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 12.6 While carrying the arguments further, ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of ITAT, Raipur in the case of A.C. Strips Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 53/RPR/2020 dated 06.01.2023, wherein, under the similar circumstances as of the present case, it has been categorically held as under: “11. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid statutory pr…

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Moga vs. Measge Tlg Agro Traders Privte Limited, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, IT No- 637/Asr/2019 is dismissed

ITA 637/ASR/2019[2014-158]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Feb 2023AY 2014-158

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

…30th July, 2010 in SLP.No.21073 of 1999, in which it was held as under: “We have examined the position; we find that the shareholders are genuine parties. They are not bogus and fictitious therefore; the impugned order is set aside.” G.P International Ltd. 325 ITR 25 (P& H HC) “As far as the addition of Rs. 3,30,000 is concerned, it has been held that during the proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 250 of the Act, the assessee furnished a confirmation certificate from M/s. Axis Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Faridabad along with PAN. On asking of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has confirm…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जाेधपुर न्यायपीठ] जाेधपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘DB’ JODHPUR. Jh HkkLdju chvkj] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI BASKARAN BR, AM & HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 30/JODH/2020 Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Wagad Construction Co., Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Plot No. 15, Near Bhati Engineering Works, Udaipur. Titari Bus Stand. Udaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAAFW 2213 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 119/JODH/2020 Ass…

Pine Tree Consultants P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle - 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1695/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.1696/Mum/2020 (A.Y: 2013-14) Pine Tree Consultants Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(2)(2) Pvt Ltd, No.104, Raheja Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, 1St Floor, Mk Road, Free Press Journal Mumbai -400020. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp8816F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cit(A))-8 Mumbai Passed Under Sec250 Of The Act

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…nder: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 15 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Taxmann.com 402/257 Taxmann 390 (Del). 10. Further the assessee has cooperated in submitting the information in the assessment proceedings, whereas the A.O has ignored the information, evidences and audited financial ITA No…

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

…actions executed between the creditors and the sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the Assessee to prove the credit worthiness of the sub- creditors." Judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.P. international Ltd., (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P & H) in which it was held as under: "AO having not doubted tire identity of the persons from whom the assessee company has shown receipt of share application money, impugned transactions cannot be treated as non-genuine merely because some of the applicants did not respond to the notice issued by the AO under s, 133(6) and, therefore, addition…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 67/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…der: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Taxmann.com 402/257 Taxmann 390 (Del). 6. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of unsecured loan and allow this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 66/MUM/2022[2013-14`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…der: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Taxmann.com 402/257 Taxmann 390 (Del). 6. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of unsecured loan and allow this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 65/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…der: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Taxmann.com 402/257 Taxmann 390 (Del). 6. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of unsecured loan and allow this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 64/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…der: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Taxmann.com 402/257 Taxmann 390 (Del). 6. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of unsecured loan and allow this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee…

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

…- appearance of the shareholder in response to notice under section 133(6) is not a ground for making the addition under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. CIT vs., Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd., 299 ITR 1. 268 (Del.) 2. CIT vs., GP International Ltd., 325 ITR 25 (P & H) 7.3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee in yet another plank of his arguments submitted that copy of statements recorded by the Investigation Wing were not supplied to the assessee. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement of third party recorded behind the back of t…

Vijay Steel Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

ITA 6928/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & M/S. Vijay Steel Vs. Dcit 13(3)2 Corporation Pvt Ltd Mumbai.-400020 2 Sabhapati Bhavan, 19 Meena Baugh, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv3517E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vivek Jain. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Hoshang B Irani. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Vivek Jain. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Hoshang B Irani. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44ASection 68

…e submissions relying on the judicial decisions as under: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd, 216 ITR 196 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd, 158 Taxman 440 (Del) 3. Hindustan Inks & Resin Ltd Vs. DCIT, 60 DTR/8 (Guj) 4. DCIT Vs. GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P&H) 5. PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction Pvt ltd (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Del) 6. PCIT Vs. Hitech Residency P Ltd, (2018), 96 Taxmann.com 402/257 Taxmann 390 (Del). 7. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of unsecured loans and allow this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. 8. With regard to the second disput…

M/S Hothur Traders, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…orted the order of lower authorities relying on the following judgments:- (i) West Asia Exports & Imports (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, 104 taxmann.com 170 (Madras) (ii) Gujtron Electronics (P) Ltd. v ITO, 83 taxmann.com 389 (Gujarat) (iii) CIT v. GP International Ltd., 325 ITR 25 / 186 taxman 229 (P&H). 11. In the present case, the assessee presented the balance sheet which was prepared from the books of account in which the amount is shown as outstanding to the tune of Rs.417,17,395 to M/s. ILC Industries Ltd. This amount is carried forward from the earlier year. It was submitted by the assessee that the said company had…

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)

…e following decisions: Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax v/s value capital services p.ltd.(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)…

Income Tax Officer-1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Money Matters Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5262/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Jothi lakshmi Nayak (DR)/ Ms
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…14-TIOL-656-ITAT-Mum] - CIT vs Lovely export (P) Ltd 1319 ITR 5 SC) - ACT vs Anjara India Ltd [135 TTJ 430 Del] - CIT vs Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd 1330 ITR 603 Del] - CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd [330 ITR 298 Del] - CIT vs GP International Ltd [325 ITR 25 P H) - ACT vs Ruchi Credit Corporation Ltd 12010-TIOL-738-ITAT-Mum] - CIT vs Stellar Investment Ltd [251ITR 263 SC] - CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [294 ITR 661Mad] - Prana Studios Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT [2010-TIOL-244-ITAT-Mum] - ITO vs Ashirwad Metals Pvt. Ltd [2009-TIOL-810-ITAT-Mum] In order to decide the issue in appeal, section 68of the I.T. Act has…

Money Matters Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5116/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Jothi lakshmi Nayak (DR)/ Ms
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…14-TIOL-656-ITAT-Mum] - CIT vs Lovely export (P) Ltd 1319 ITR 5 SC) - ACT vs Anjara India Ltd [135 TTJ 430 Del] - CIT vs Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd 1330 ITR 603 Del] - CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd [330 ITR 298 Del] - CIT vs GP International Ltd [325 ITR 25 P H) - ACT vs Ruchi Credit Corporation Ltd 12010-TIOL-738-ITAT-Mum] - CIT vs Stellar Investment Ltd [251ITR 263 SC] - CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [294 ITR 661Mad] - Prana Studios Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT [2010-TIOL-244-ITAT-Mum] - ITO vs Ashirwad Metals Pvt. Ltd [2009-TIOL-810-ITAT-Mum] In order to decide the issue in appeal, section 68of the I.T. Act has…

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

…decisions: i. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. (2008) 307 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…

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

…decisions: i. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. (2008) 307 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…

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…Income tax v/s HLT Finance Pvt. Ltd. 12 Taxmann.com 247 9. Commr, Of Income Tax, Central-Ill Vs Anshika Consultants (P) Ltd. 62 Taxmann.com 192 10.Commr. of Income tax v/s STL Extrusion P. Ltd. 333 ITR 269 11. Commr. Of Income tax v/s GP International Limited 325 ITR 25 12. Asst. Commr. Of Income tax v/s Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd 319 ITR 393 13. Commr. Of Income Tax Vs Fair finvest Ltd. 44 taxmann.com 356 14. Commr. Of Income Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) Vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. 35 taxmann.com 444 15. Commr. Of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Pranav Foundations Ltd. 51 taxmann.com 198 16. Principle Cornmr. Of Income Tax…