CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

M/S. Metro Decorative Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

…s placing reliance on the decisions reported in G&G Pharma India Ltd. (Del. High Court) (supra), N.C. Cables Ltd. vs. ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del), Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 195 Taxman 262 (Del), CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 119 Taxmann.com 26 (Del.). As could be seen from these decisions, it is consistently held that the reopening based on the information furnished by the Directorate of Investigation and the AO without making any further Investigation on his own, recording the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment are bad. In fact in Pr. CIT vs. M/s N.C. Cables L…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ness of the transaction and hence the burden which lay upon the assessee under section 68 of the Act stood discharged, (at pages 23-36 of PB and pages 6-102 of PB) :- CIT vs. Lovely Export i. 216 CTR 195 CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. ii. reported in 248 CTR 33 CIT vs. vs. Nipuan Auto Pvt. Ltd. iii. in ITA 225/2013 dated 30.04.2013 Commissioner of Income-tax iv. Vs. Supertech Diamond Tools (P.) Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 460 (Rajasthan) Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. 12 I. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 taxmann.com 204 (A…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…AT and submitted that the genuineness of each transaction is in severe doubt. He also relied upon CIT ITA No.55/2017 Page 13 of 25 v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (hereafter ‘Divine Leasing’) and CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (hereafter ‘Kamdhenu’). Respondent-Assessee’s Submissions 20. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel for the Respondent-Assessee vehemently urged that in this case the Assessee has produced a large number of the documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness in respect of each creditor and each transaction. The ITAT rig…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Greenland Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 1528/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2003-04. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Greenland Finance & Ward : 12 (2), Vs. Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 306, Sharp Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. Pan : Aaacg 3755 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 206 Taxman 207 (Del.); (ii) CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 43 (Del.); (iii) CIT Vs. Gangour Investment Ltd. (2009) 179 Taxman 1 (Del.); (iv) CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.); (v) CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.); (vi) CIT Vs. Pradeep Gupta 207 CTR 115 (Del.); (vii) CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278. 3.3 The ld. AR contended further that proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.04.2013 and thus it would be effecti…

M/S. Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-2525/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, Rastriya Tower, 38, Rani Jhansi Central Circle-15, Road, Jhandewalan, Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAECP1021H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No.-2523/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Prabhatam Buildtech Ltd., Vs ACIT, Rastriya Tower, 38, Rani Jhansi Central Circle-15, Road, Jhandewalan, Delhi-110055. New Delhi. PAN-AADCP9211E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No.-2524/Del/2015…

M/S. Airads Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…see's documentary evidence?" Decided in Favour of : Assessee Held: The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220 in which it has been held: Cash credits--Unexplained 10 investments--Burden of proof--Share application money--Assessee explaining source' of money-Identities of applicants and their creditworthiness established--Burden of proof discharged by assessee--Onus shifted to Department--No evidence to show transactions were not genuine--Sections 68 and…

Shri Sachin Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4577/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2013-14 SACHIN KAPOOR, ITO, WARD 32(5), NEW DELHI C/O RRA TAXINDIA, VS. D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI (PAN: AJUPK5509P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, CA & Sh. Yashu Goel, CA Department by : Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR ORDER Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 16.3.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- “1. That having regard to the facts and ci…

M/S. Mission Viejo Agro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

…n. Therefore, addition made u/s 68 of the Act was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: 18 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd. 30 Taxmann.com 328 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 361 ITR 220 (Del.) 11. It was further stated that the aforesaid amount was received by the depositor M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. from a company of Jain brothers and the addition of the same had already been made in the hands of M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. for the assessment year 2005- 06, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2013 (copy of the said order…

Shri Bhupendra Singh Rathore, Greater Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…ee's documentary evidence?" Decided in Favour of : Assessee Held: The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220 in which it has been held: Cash credits-- Unexplained investments--Burden of proof--Share application money--Assessee explaining source' of money-Identities of applicants and their creditworthiness established--Burden of proof discharged by assessee--Onus shifted to Department--No evidence to show transactions were not genuine--Sections 68 and 69…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. j) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Tolaram Daga vs. CIT k) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 6.1 As regards addition of Rs. 5,49,000/- representing loans received by the assessee and, held to be unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Ld. A.R. of the assessee stated that these are the unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 5,49,000/- had been received by account payee cheques from identifiab…

Sh. Rajiv Mahajan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…iming that the M/s Pashupati Enterprises was engaged in providing accommodation entries by issuing bills on commission. Support is drawn from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. & ORS reported in 361 ITR 220. A perusal of the said decision would show that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held therein that not providing opportunity of cross-examination of witness is a violation of principle of natural Justice and upheld the action of the Tribunal in remitting Page 5 of 7 I.T.A .No.-1100/Del/2016 the matter to the Assessing Officer. The relevant find…

M/S Goli Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Goli Finance Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, Wz-386, Ram Chowk, Company Circle-12(1), Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi-1100 45 (Pan: Aaacg1962A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05 .05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 :07.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Passed The Order Arbitrarily & Without Least Verification & Appreciating Of Facts. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Addition Of Rs.16,11,500 Made In Respect Of Unexplained Cash Credit Under Sec. 68 Of The Act Be Deleted.

…ted in their respective accounts immediately before the receipts of share application money. 5 Learned AR in this regard placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.) to support his contention that mere suspicion cannot be a basis to make addition of share application money and in such cases the Assessing Officer ought to have examined the source in the assessment of respective share subscribers and not in the case of a company. He also placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Virandvan Fa…

M/S. Raj Hans Towrs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., M-33, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Circle -15(1), Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacr0019H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Respondent By Sh. V.P. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2016 Order

…0 3.5 From the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not decided the ground seeking statement and cross-examination of Sh. SK Gupta. We find that in the case of CIT vs. KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. & ORS reported in 361 ITR 220, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that not providing opportunity of cross- examination of witness is a violation of principle of natural Justice and upheld the action of the Tribunal in remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is reproduced as under: “55. In our discussion on the as…

M.K. Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. M.K. Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward – 6(1), New Delhi G-76, Sant Nagar Extn., Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aaecs3075L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…tement etc. were filed and, therefore, assessee discharged its onus and hence no addition was warranted in the case of assessee under section 68 of the Act. In support thereof, the AR relied on the judgment in the case of Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys reported in 361 ITR 220 (Del). 8.2 On the other hand, learned Sr. D.R. submitted that summons sent under section 131 of the Act were written unserved with the postal remarks that no such firms/companies existed on those addresses and the assessee also failed to either produce or provide their current addresses. Further, referring to the page no. 18 of the assessee’s pap…