CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

361 ITR 220High Court2014#227 most cited

What is CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. authority for?

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

328

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. · Section 68 · creditworthiness of creditor · share application money · share capital · bank statement as proof · financial strength of investor · unexplained cash credit · addition under section 68

Also reported as

248 CTR 3319 Taxmann.com 2668 DTR 38

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

share capital and share premiumsource of sourcepaper companycreditworthiness of the creditorsection 31live linksection 251(2)share application moneyaddition u/s 68section 251(1)(a)entry operatoradmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

ITO (E) WARD 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ACHARYA SHRI VIJAY SURENDRA SURISHWARJI JAIN TATWA GYAN SHALA, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2334/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…sessee has furnished complete details along with supporting evidences, no addition can be made without bringing contrary material on record. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 254 (Delhi) / [2012] 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) has held that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of non-compliance when evidences are subsequently furnished and remain uncontroverted. 19. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has recorded a finding of fact, based on examination of evidences and remand report, that the time deposits have been explained. But, in so far…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ing Officer referred to the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain. 299 ITR 383. (iii) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 248 CTR 33. I find that it has been stated by the appellant that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel (Bharat Kumar Patel) retracted his statement dated 22.05.2018 and filed a retraction affidavit on 04.06.2018. In the retraction affidavit it has been mentioned that the GST Officers gave him an printout of three page and got it signed by forcing him to sign the print out.…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ing Officer referred to the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain. 299 ITR 383. (iii) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 248 CTR 33. I find that it has been stated by the appellant that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel (Bharat Kumar Patel) retracted his statement dated 22.05.2018 and filed a retraction affidavit on 04.06.2018. In the retraction affidavit it has been mentioned that the GST Officers gave him an printout of three page and got it signed by forcing him to sign the print out.…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ing Officer referred to the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Atul Jain. 299 ITR 383. (iii) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 248 CTR 33. I find that it has been stated by the appellant that Shri Bharat Bhai Patel (Bharat Kumar Patel) retracted his statement dated 22.05.2018 and filed a retraction affidavit on 04.06.2018. In the retraction affidavit it has been mentioned that the GST Officers gave him an printout of three page and got it signed by forcing him to sign the print out.…

HORIZON BUILDMART PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

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

ITA 1250/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalhorizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, C-131, Ground Floor, Block-C, Central Circle-Ii, Sushant Shopping Arcade, Vs. Faridabad, Sushant Lok-1, Haryana-121001. Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aacch4582P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Assessee By Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.01.2025 In Appeal No.10581/Cit(A) Ggn-3/2018-19 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.54,833/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Received Loan Horizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…rts the explanation of assessee that genuine investment have been made in the assessee company. We rely upon Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT us. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Del.); CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.); CIT us. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.); CIT us. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd., 330 ITR 603 (Del.); CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kureli Papers Mills P. Ltd., 380 ITR 571 (Del.). 6.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and…

NEW TRACK EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2765/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…rts the explanation of assessee that genuine investment have been made in the assessee company. We rely upon Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT us. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Del.); CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.); CIT us. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.); CIT us. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd., 330 ITR 603 (Del.); CIT vs. Value Capital New Track Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kureli Papers Mills P. Ltd., 380 ITR 571 (Del.). 6.1. Considering the totality of the facts…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…d. ii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd iii) ITA No. 212/2012 dated 11.4.2012 (Del) CIT v. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd. iv) 342 ITR 169 (Del) Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd v) ITA No. 645/2012 dated 13.1.2015 (Del) Funnay Time Finvest Ltd vi) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. M's Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd.) vii) ITA No. 71/2015 dated 12.8.2015 (Del) CIT v. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. viii) ITA No. 3342/D/2013 ITO v. XO Infotech Ltd. ix) 163 Taxman 482 (Del) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd x) 296 ITR 750 (Del) CIT v V.B. Aggarwal xi) 99 ITR 268 (Del) CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd xii) 49 ITR 650…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR vs. SMITA MUKESH KEDIA, RAIPUR

ITA 451/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 451/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

…rther, If the AO had any doubt regarding the genuineness of the transaction , he could have issued notice u/s 133(6) to the sellers/ transporters to verify the same. However, the AO has not done so. In the decision of CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012]19 Taxmann.com 26, it has been held as under : “38. Even in the instant case, it is projected by the Revenue that the DIT (lnvestigation) had purportedly found such a racket of floating bogus companies with sole purpose of lending entries. But it is unfortunate that all this exercise is going in vain as few more steps which should have been taken by Revenue…

INTERGRATOR CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2256/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250

…y merely acting\nmechanically on the information supplied by investigation wing\nand has not conducted any independent inquiry of its own. In this\nregard reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of\nCIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33,\nwherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that ‘reassessment\nmerely on the basis of report of the Investigation wing is held to be\nnot valid'.\n10. We further noticed that the assesse requested the AO to\nprovide the following documents as relied upon by the AO:\ni. Copy of information report received from the office of\nthe DDIT (Investig…

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 717/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…borrowed satisfaction. To support this contention, reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), CIT v. Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 248 CTR 33 (Delhi), Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel v. ITO (Gujarat High Court, ITA No. 12873 of 2014, dated 13.10.2015), and Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi). The assessee further submitted that all transactions of purchase and sale of shares were genuine and supported by documentary evidence including contract notes, dema…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…i) ii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd iii) ITA No. 212/2012 dated 11.4.2012 (Del) CIT v. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd. iv) 342 ITR 169 (Del) Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd v) ITA No. 645/2012 dated 13.1.2015 (Del) Funnay Time Finvest Ltd vi) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. MisKamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. vii) ITA No. 71/2015 dated 12.8.2015 (Del) CIT v. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. viii) ITA No. 3342/D/20 13 ITO v. XO Infotech Ltd. 21. He further submitted that even otherwise in Whatsapp Chat, there is nothing adverse stated by assesseeto even assume that there is unaccounted cash sales as is evident fr…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…i) ii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd iii) ITA No. 212/2012 dated 11.4.2012 (Del) CIT v. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd. iv) 342 ITR 169 (Del) Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd v) ITA No. 645/2012 dated 13.1.2015 (Del) Funnay Time Finvest Ltd vi) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. MisKamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. vii) ITA No. 71/2015 dated 12.8.2015 (Del) CIT v. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. viii) ITA No. 3342/D/20 13 ITO v. XO Infotech Ltd. 21. He further submitted that even otherwise in Whatsapp Chat, there is nothing adverse stated by assesseeto even assume that there is unaccounted cash sales as is evident fr…

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIGEORGE MATHAN, JM ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17) Samrat Finvestors Private ITO, Ward 5(2) Limited 110, Shantipally, Aayakar 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Road, Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700107, Vs. 2nd Floor, Room No.13A, West Bengal Kolkata-700007, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS4698G Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 27.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These a…

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIGEORGE MATHAN, JM ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17) Samrat Finvestors Private ITO, Ward 5(2) Limited 110, Shantipally, Aayakar 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Road, Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700107, Vs. 2nd Floor, Room No.13A, West Bengal Kolkata-700007, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS4698G Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 27.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These a…

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIGEORGE MATHAN, JM ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17) Samrat Finvestors Private ITO, Ward 5(2) Limited 110, Shantipally, Aayakar 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Road, Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700107, Vs. 2nd Floor, Room No.13A, West Bengal Kolkata-700007, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS4698G Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 27.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These a…

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIGEORGE MATHAN, JM ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17) Samrat Finvestors Private ITO, Ward 5(2) Limited 110, Shantipally, Aayakar 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Road, Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700107, Vs. 2nd Floor, Room No.13A, West Bengal Kolkata-700007, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS4698G Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 27.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These a…

NARENDRA KACHRULAL ABAD,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 866/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.866/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Narendra Kachrulal Abad, V The Income Tax Officer, Abad House, Nal Galli, S Ward-1, Jalna. Kadrabad, Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Acspa9531C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Aurangabadpassed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.03.2019, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 03.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ing case laws and filed a short note on each case law : o PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd.(2018) 93 taxmann.com 153/167 DTR 290(Bom HC) o S.Narayana Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 o ITO Vs. LakhmaniMerwal Das 103 ITR 437 o CIT V. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012 248 CTR 33 (Del)(HC) o CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co Ltd (2015) 128 DTR 217 (Del) (HC) o Pr. CIT vs. G. Pharma India Ltd. (2017) 384 ITR 147 (Del) (HC) o CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del) (HC) Meenakshi Oversea's Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 677 CIT (Del) (HC) o CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del) (HC) Sarthank Sec…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…view. The\nexistence of tangible material is necessary to ensure against an arbitrary exercise of power.\nAventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom)\n(xiii) Other relied upon judgments on this issue: -\na) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Delhi)(High Court).\nb) CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co Ltd (2015) 128 DTR 217 (Delhi)(HC)\nc) Pr. CIT v G. Pharma India Ltd.[2017] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) (H C)\nd) CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.)(HC)\ne) CIT v/s Meenakshi Oversea's Pvt Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 677(Del) (HC)\nf) CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR…

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 453/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

…आयर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘ए’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साविडया, माननीय लेखा सद" SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.452 & 453/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year(s): 2016-17 & 2017-18) DCIT Vs. United Developer Central Circle-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN : AADFU4034H] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.14/Hyd/2025 & 15/Hyd/2025 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.452 & 453/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessme…

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 452/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

…आयर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘ए’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साविडया, माननीय लेखा सद" SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.452 & 453/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year(s): 2016-17 & 2017-18) DCIT Vs. United Developer Central Circle-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN : AADFU4034H] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.14/Hyd/2025 & 15/Hyd/2025 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.452 & 453/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessme…

Showing 1–20 of 328 · Page 1 of 17

...