CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

361 ITR 220High Court2014#233 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 366,339 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.

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Competent Infoways Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…easing & Finance Ltd xiv) 330 ITR 298 (Del) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. xv) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. xvi) 354 ITR 282 (Del) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO xvii) 3 61 ITR 147 (Del) CIT v. Expo Global India Ltd. xviii) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd affirmed by Apex Court in SLP No. 15640 of 2012 dated 23.12.2011 xix) 366 ITR 110 (Del) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd. xx) 380 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 xxi) ITA No. 71/2019 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Priyatam P…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 124/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…easing & Finance Ltd xiv) 330 ITR 298 (Del) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. xv) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. xvi) 354 ITR 282 (Del) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO xvii) 3 61 ITR 147 (Del) CIT v. Expo Global India Ltd. xviii) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd affirmed by Apex Court in SLP No. 15640 of 2012 dated 23.12.2011 xix) 366 ITR 110 (Del) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd. xx) 380 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 xxi) ITA No. 71/2019 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Priyatam P…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Aqua Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 122/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…easing & Finance Ltd xiv) 330 ITR 298 (Del) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. xv) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. xvi) 354 ITR 282 (Del) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO xvii) 3 61 ITR 147 (Del) CIT v. Expo Global India Ltd. xviii) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd affirmed by Apex Court in SLP No. 15640 of 2012 dated 23.12.2011 xix) 366 ITR 110 (Del) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd. xx) 380 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 xxi) ITA No. 71/2019 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Priyatam P…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd., Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 119/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…easing & Finance Ltd xiv) 330 ITR 298 (Del) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. xv) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. xvi) 354 ITR 282 (Del) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO xvii) 3 61 ITR 147 (Del) CIT v. Expo Global India Ltd. xviii) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd affirmed by Apex Court in SLP No. 15640 of 2012 dated 23.12.2011 xix) 366 ITR 110 (Del) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd. xx) 380 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 xxi) ITA No. 71/2019 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Priyatam P…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 115/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…easing & Finance Ltd xiv) 330 ITR 298 (Del) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. xv) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. xvi) 354 ITR 282 (Del) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO xvii) 3 61 ITR 147 (Del) CIT v. Expo Global India Ltd. xviii) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd affirmed by Apex Court in SLP No. 15640 of 2012 dated 23.12.2011 xix) 366 ITR 110 (Del) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd. xx) 380 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 xxi) ITA No. 71/2019 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Priyatam P…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 111/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…easing & Finance Ltd xiv) 330 ITR 298 (Del) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. xv) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. xvi) 354 ITR 282 (Del) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO xvii) 3 61 ITR 147 (Del) CIT v. Expo Global India Ltd. xviii) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd affirmed by Apex Court in SLP No. 15640 of 2012 dated 23.12.2011 xix) 366 ITR 110 (Del) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd. xx) 380 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 xxi) ITA No. 71/2019 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Priyatam P…

J.C.I.T.(OSD), Cirlce-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shivm Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 238/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.238/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jcit(Osd), Circle-3(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Shivm Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. . 20B, Abdul Hamid Street, East India House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs1926J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Ca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CITFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 68

…t. 03.02.2016 (ITAT Kolkata Bench) b) M/s Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (Hon'ble Supreme Court) in 159 ITR 078 dt. 19.03.1986. c) M/s Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) in 361 ITR 220 dt. 23.12.2011. d) M/s A-One lousing Complex Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Hon'ble ITAT Delhi) in 110 1TD 361 d. 18.05.2007. I.T.A No.238/Kol/2020 M/s. Shivm Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 E) It is established that the Ld. A.O. proceeded with a biased intention to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. Moreover, the AO did not…

Vrc Township P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Shalini Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…s and approval is also given on incorrect facts. The initiation and approval on the basis of wrong facts is not legally valid. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 248 CTR 33 and other decisions as was relied upon before the authorities below. The amount received from 30 companies is Rs.8.13 crores only out of total amount of Rs.11.05 crores. Therefore, there is no other material on record to justify the addition. He has submitted that A.O. cannot ask to explain source of the source. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, t…

Thirubala Chemicals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 7130/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshist Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.7130/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 M/s. Thirubala Chemicals The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., C-501, NDM-2, [vs. Ward – 25 (2), Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. PAN AACCT0454E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Parikshist Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed ag…

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 853/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Uditi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n 39 ITA.No.853/Del./2020 M/s. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Panipat. Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Gangeshwar Metals Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 10 (Del.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220 (Del.) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., 307 ITR 334 (Del.). 13. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. submitted that SEBI is a statutory authority, therefore, their findings of fact are binding. He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has summarised the findings…

Meenu Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 8333/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiita.No.8333/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Meenu Kapoor, 819 Katra Neel, The Acit, Circle-47(1), Chandni Chowk, Vs., Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi. Pan Aajpk6319D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.K. Singhal, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 Order Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. This Appeal By Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Dated 03.09.2019, For The A.Y. 2016-2017, Challenging The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.10,20,45,840/- On Account Of Unexplained Loan Under Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 68

…ch liability under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. failed to carry his suspicion to logical conclusion by further investigation. We rely upon Judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., &Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “Once adequate evidence/material is given, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving the identity of shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has “created”…

Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 8066/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…s and approval is also given on incorrect facts. The initiation and approval on the basis of wrong facts is not legally valid. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 248 CTR 33 and other decisions as was relied upon before the authorities below. The amount received from 30 companies is Rs.8.13 crores only out of total amount of Rs.11.05 crores. Therefore, there is no other material on record to justify the addition. He has submitted that A.O. cannot ask to explain source of the source. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…son from whom he had allegedly taken the loan. The loan amount was rightly held to be the assessee's own undisclosed income. 8.4 Reliance was also placed on the decision of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited [2012] 19 taxmann.com 26/206 Taxaman 254 [2014] 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) wherein the Court that: "38. Even in that instant case, it is projected by the Revenue that the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) had purportedly found such a racket of floating bogus companies with sole purpose of lending entries. But, it is unfortunate that all this exercise if going in vain as few more steps which should have b…

M/S. Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…sequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law” 34. Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 26/206 Taxman 254/[2014] 361 ITR 220 is also relevant, wherein it was held as under : "Once adequate evidence/material is given, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving the identity of shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has "…

Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…and approval is also given on incorrect facts. The initiation and approval on the basis of wrong facts is not legally valid. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 248 CTR 33 and other decisions as was relied upon before the authorities below. The amount received from 30 companies is Rs.8.13 crores only out of total amount of Rs.11.05 crores. Therefore, there is no other material on record to justify the addition. He has submitted that A.O. cannot ask to explain source of the source. Learned Counsel for the Assess…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 3, Thane vs. Credential Equities P. Ltd, Bhayander

In the result, the appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 3808/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2009-10 ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane vs. M/s. Credential Equities Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) Ground floor, Bhairav Shrusthti, 150 feet Road, Bhayander (W). PAN : AACCC0112C (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Shri Awungshi Gimson Date of Hearing : 09/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28/11/2019 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10 in the matter…

Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parmit M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s and approval is also given on incorrect facts. The initiation and approval on the basis of wrong facts is not legally valid. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 248 CTR 33 and other decisions as was relied upon before the authorities below. The amount received from 30 companies is Rs.8.13 crores only out of total amount of Rs.11.05 crores. Therefore, there is no other material on record to justify the addition. He has submitted that A.O. cannot ask to explain source of the source. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, t…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5269/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…the identity of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions had been established by the assessee. The amount was not assessable under section 68.” 82. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) held as under : “Once adequate evidence/material is given, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving the identity of shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has “created” evidence, the Rev…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…the identity of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions had been established by the assessee. The amount was not assessable under section 68.” 82. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) held as under : “Once adequate evidence/material is given, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving the identity of shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has “created” evidence, the Rev…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3742/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…the identity of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions had been established by the assessee. The amount was not assessable under section 68.” 82. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) held as under : “Once adequate evidence/material is given, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving the identity of shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has “created” evidence, the Rev…