How many judgments cite CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.?

328 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (361 ITR 220), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 131, Section 133(6).

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 366,005 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 147 Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

share capital and share premium source of source paper company creditworthiness of the creditor section 31 live link section 251(2)share application money addition u/s 68 section 251(1)(a)entry operator admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

H.V. Goradia (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5675/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…ind to the information received from the investigation wing and he has reopened the assessment in a mechanical manner. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (248 CTR 33) and submitted that the assessing officer could not draw adverse inference without making any enquiries. 6. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessing officer should have only proper reason to believe about escapement of income at the time of reopening of assessment and it is not required that the assessing officer should prove the…

Sh. Himanshu Chawla, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 737/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…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-- 7 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…

M/S Vam-Hi-Fashion Garments Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 494/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…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 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…

M/S. Btm Exports Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 1541/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri At Varkeyay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SK Jain, D.R

Section 68

…the assessee has proved identity of creditor/share applicant by either furnishing PAN or copy of their bank account, the addition under Sec. 68 cannot be made without any additional marterial to support the same [CIT vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., (2012) 248 ITR 33 (Del)]. 5. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the addition even though the source of the funds of the shareholders were known, i.e. being Shubh Laxmi Textile. The factum of the business dealings of the appellant with tile said two concerns was established and the PAN ward etc. of the shareholders was also a fact. 6. That the Ld. AO…

Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana vs. ITO, Fatehabad

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

ITA 1542/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.1542/Del./2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Banwari Lal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2, S/O Shri Bishan Dass, Fatehabad. 31, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Distt. Fatehabad.

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Peeyush Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR

Section 68

…ot explained could be a ground to bring to tax sum received as loan by the appellant. The appellant supported his submission by relying upon the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj) (ii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del) (iii) Mod Creation (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 354 ITR 282 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs Mayawati 338 ITR 563 (Del) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (vii) CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) (viii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT 103 ITR 344 (P…

Kalra Forgings & Alloys (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is therefore, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 68

…DELHI BENCH:‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 499/Del/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) Kalra Forgings & Alloys (P) vs ITO, Ltd., Ward 5(1), 25/28, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi. AACCK4551B Appellant by Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent by Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement 21.10.2015 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the CIT(A)’s order dated 25/11/2011 for A.Y. 2006-07 on the following grounds: 1. “That the ld. CIT(A) has erred…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

ITA-341/2012HC Delhi28 Nov 2013

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A(1)Section 68

…) 378, CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., ITA No.232 of 2012 dated 22-11-2012, CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.), CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del), CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors, (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Del)., CIT vs. Gourdin Herbals India Ltd., ITA No.665 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009 (Del.), CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., (2010) 329 ITR 271 (Del), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del), Madhuri Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and Ors., ITA No.110 of 2004 dated 18 - 01-2006, CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

ITA/341/2012HC Delhi28 Nov 2013

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A(1)Section 68