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. Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 2257/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. PAN: AACCV1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. PAN: AACCV1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR & Ms Shweta Bansal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR Date of Hear…

Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 1088/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. PAN: AACCV1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. PAN: AACCV1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR & Ms Shweta Bansal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR Date of Hear…

Iskon Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ambala Cantt vs. ITO, Ward- 12(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 148Section 68

…Assessee has, thus, proved all the ingredients of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of my findings, I rely upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146, CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220, CIT vs. Dwarakadheesh Invesment Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 and CIT vs. Winstrall Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 603. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification to sustain the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, in the absence of any evidence on record, no addit…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Amit Scan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 227/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 68

…view of the matter, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. In support of the findings, we rely upon decisions of Honorable Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220, CIT vs. Dwarakadheesh Investment Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 288 and 8 ITA.No.227/Del./2012 Amit Scan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. CIT vs. Vinstrall Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 603. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the departmental appeal. 7. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court. (L.P. SAHU) JUDI…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Blisswood Green Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5120/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 68

…its contentions has also relied on the following decisions : CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) (i) ACIT v. Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P.) Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 424 (Delhi - (ii) Trib.) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel &. Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220/19 taxmann.com 26 (iii) (Delhi) 12 CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. [2011] 10 taxmann.com 137 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Gangour Investment Ltd. (2009) 18 DTR (Del) 242: (2009) 179 Taxman 1 (v) (Del) CIT v. Kamna Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 470 (Allahabad) (vi) CIT v. Miq Steels (P.) Ltd. [2013] 36 taxmann.com 422 (Allahabad…

Wood Craft Exports Co. Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3802/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Pratiyush Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…he assessee produced voluminous evidences in respect of the genuine share application money received which have not been properly appreciated. He has relied upon decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.) and CIT vs. Fair Finvest (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., 299 ITR 268. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authoritie…

Flourish Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3342/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raja Ram Sah, CIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ee to establish the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the lender. What kind of proof is to be furnished by the assessee has been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys 361 ITR 220 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that: “In case the investor/shareholder is an individual, some documents will have to be filed or the said shareholder will have to be produced before the AO to prove his identity. If the creditor/subscriber is a company, then the details in the form of registered address or PAN identity, etc. can be furni…

ITO, WD-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodluck Merchants P Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Goodluck Merchants P. Ltd..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 10/4B, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcb 2011 L]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…e Tribunal was satisfied that the identities of the applicants for shares in the assessee had been established. No legal question arises as a result of such finding.” 6.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 ITR 33, held that once the assessee has prove identity of creditor share applicant, by either furnishing PAN or copy of their bank account, the addition under section 68 of the Act cannot be made without any material to support the same. 6.5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. in ITA No.597/2012 judgment dated 2…

ITO, WD-9(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…e Tribunal was satisfied that the identities of the applicants for shares in the assessee had been established. No legal question arises as a result of such finding.” 6.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 ITR 33, held that once the assessee has prove identity of creditor share applicant, by either furnishing PAN or copy of their bank account, the addition under section 68 of the Act cannot be made without any material to support the same. 6.5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. in ITA No.597/2012 judgment dated 2…

M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Surat

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

ITA 573/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ITR 680 (Bom) [2017] 247 Taxman 245 (Bom), [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom) and Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. 403 ITR 415 (Bom). The learned Counsel further, placing reliance in the case of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. [2012] 248 CTR (Del.) 33 / 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) SLP dismissed reported CC-15640/2012 dtd. 17.09.2012 submitted that mere failure of the creditors to respond to Department`s notices could not be a basis to conclude that the assessee has invested its undisclosed income and invoke the provisions of section 68 against the assessee- AO has failed to carry his suspicion to logical conclusion…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maa Amba Towers Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri, M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 DCIT, Circle-10(1) V/s. M/s Maa Amba Towers Ltd. B-401, 4th Floor, City Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Centre, Salt Lake, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-64 [PAN No.AAFCM 0147 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dilip S Damle, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-10-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 12-10-2018 घो…

Anju Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1322/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

…to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. ” iii. Decision 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” e…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids vs Pr. CIT-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, LBS M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AADCG2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue b…

M/S Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…M/s. Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward.1(1)(3)/SRT/I.T.A. No. 161/SRT/2018/A.Y.12-13 Page 1 of 24 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, , , , लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.161/SRT/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Kamal Rayon Private Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1) (3), Surat. 1003, New Sardar Traders Market, Sahara Darwaja, Surat-395010 [PAN: AAMCS 3194 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओ…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaidka Woolen & Hossiery Mills P Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5302/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R

…ummon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition.” 25.2. The Hon’ble Delhi 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”…

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5637/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahurajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-134, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. New Delhi Aaacr0366B Appellant Respondent

Section 68

…ted as undisclosed income of assessee. Thus, no addition could be sustained against the assessee. In support of our findings, we rely upon following decisions: i. CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd. 357 ITR 146; ii. CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. & Ors., 361 ITR 220 (Del.); iii. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. 356 ITR 65 (MP); iv. CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del.); v. CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603; vi. CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.). 14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 held tha…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Advent Stock Management Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1647/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…e Tribunal was satisfied that the identities of the applicants for shares in the assessee had been established. No legal question arises as a result of such finding.” 6.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 ITR 33, held that once the assessee has prove identity of creditor share applicant, by either furnishing PAN or copy of their bank account, the addition under section 68 of the Act cannot be made without any material to support the same. 6.5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. in ITA No.597/2012 judgment dated 2…

Raj Kumar Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1323/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

…proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with 19 law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. ” iii. Decision 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” e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sutlej Agro Products Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…ree to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company.” 9.4. Decision 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”…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…1464/Del/2018, 1465/Del/2018, 1466/Del/2018, 1467/Del/2018, 1468/Del/2018, 1469/Del/2018, 1470/Del/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2015-16 c) CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2011] 239 CTR 478 (Delhi HC); d) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 248 CTR 33 (DelhiHC); e) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. [2011] 238 CTR 402 (Delhi HC); f) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 334 (DELHI); g) Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P) Ltd v. CIT (2009) 18 DTR (Del) 194; h) CIT v. Sameer Biotech (P) Ltd (2009) 17 DTR 224 (Del); i) Orient Trading Co [1963] 49 ITR 723 (BOM HC) Copy of statement…