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 366,314 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.

People Care Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

ITA 6178/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S People Care Hospitals Pvt. Vs Ito, Ltd., Ward-2(1), Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad. Near Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp8745G Assessment Year: 2015-16 Potent Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-2(1), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad Sector-20B, Faridabad. Pan: Aagcp6222N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Saxena, Advocate; Shri Dishant Sethi, Advocate; & Ms Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. The Two Appeals Have Common Investors Whose Investments Have Been Doubted By The Ld, Tax Authorities Below. The Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Argued Citing Facts Of Ita

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…rtificate as per the Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 14. The Ld. AR has placed reliance on catena of judgments including the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. reported in 361 ITR 220 wherein it has held that, no addition can be made in respect of share capital received from shareholders, whose necessary evidence has been placed on record and, the Ld. AO has not led any material to the contrary. It was held therein as under: 14 The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, cou…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2363/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 69BSection 69C

…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. 14. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the findings of the authorities below. 15. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the ld.…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 217/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Income- Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Ansal Phalak Ward-2(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 206, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandi Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aafcp6583P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.216 & 217/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Acit, Ansal Phalak Circle-2(2), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 115, Ansal Bhawan, Naurang House, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, C.P., New Delhi Pan: Aafcp6583P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Sh. B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income- Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Ansal Phalak Ward-2(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 206, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandi Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAFCP6583P (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vs. M/s. ACIT, Ansal Phalak Circle-2(2), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 115, Ansal Bhawan, Naurang House, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, C.P., New Delhi PAN: AAFCP65…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 216/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5658/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 68

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

…dge of assessee.” 1.14. In a case before Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.) it was held as under : 1.15. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) held that – “The Tribunal has adopted an erroneous approach on the aspects of genuineness of the transactions in issue and the creditworthiness of the persons/creditors who lent money to the assessee. The first aspect, i.e., identity of the creditors was established before any of the authorities below. It will have to be kept in mind that…

Heritage Hospitals Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 4090/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…on 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 held 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 is going in vain as few more steps which should…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off SV Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. PAN: AKOPA 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 2011-12 is dir…

ITO, Ward- 4, Rohtak vs. Stratagem Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak

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

ITA 7482/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Ito, Ward 4, Vs. M/S. Stratagem Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak. H.No.122/8, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak (Haryana). (Pan: Aakcs2610R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date Of Order : 18.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 18.08.2009 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,17,770/-. The Return Was Processed

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…f the discussion above, the ground of appeal is allowed. ………….. 4.2 I have given careful consideration to the contention of the appellant and find that the legal preposition has been laid out in number of cases as in CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Delhi)(High Court) it was held that Notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the Assessing Officer merely acting mechanically on the information supplied by the Investigation wing about the accommodation entries provided by the assessee to certain entities without applying his own mind was not j…

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,'A' JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 621/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Private Limited, 601, 6th Floor, Ganga Heights SB-154, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur बनाम Vs. DCIT, Circle-06, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACV 7598 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. M.R.S. Shri Prannath Parnami Education Society, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.253/Chd/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम M.R.S. Shri Prannath Income Tax, Exemptions, Parnami Education Society, Circle-2, 20Km Stone, Chandigarh Rajgarh Road, Vpo Choudhariwas Hisar 125001 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabam1046N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By :Sh. Kapil Goyal, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14.01.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 133(6)

…s Vishav Manav Ruhani Kendra, Nawan Nagar, Circle-2, Chandigarh’, ITA No. 899/Chd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15), 2020 (6) TMI 129 iii) ‘CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd.’, [1986] 25 Taxman 80F/159 ITR 8(SC); iv) ‘CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors’. 361 ITR 220 (Del. HC); vi) ‘CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd.’, 2008 299 ITR 268 (Del. HC); vi) ‘CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd.’, [2011] 330 ITR 298 (Del. HC) vii) ‘DIT (Exemptions) vs. Keshav Social & Charitable Foundation’, [2005] 278 ITR 152 (Del. HC) which is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 394 ITR 496 (SC). 253-Chd-2024 -…

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

…cisions:  Orissa Corporation (P) Limited: 159 ITR 78 (SC)  CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd.: 283 ITR 190 (Del.)  CIT v. Illac Investment (P) Ltd.: 287 ITR 135 (Del.)  CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd: 333 ITR 119 (Del.)  CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd: 361 ITR 220 (Del.)  CIT v. Victor Electodes Ltd.: 329 ITR 271 (Del.)  CIT v. Nipuan Auto (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 155 (Delhi)  CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.: 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB)  Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. &Ors: 299 ITR 268 (Del.) affirmed in Lovely Export (P) Ltd.: 319 ITR (St.) 5  CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment Ltd: 194 Taxman 43 (Del.)  CIT v Antartica I…

Shree Veer Buildbest Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3) Now Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 892/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.892/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ 302, Swapneel – 5 Ward-4(1)(1) Commerce Six Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakcs 8358 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/09/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2014 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nclusive evidence against the genuineness of the transactions. 14. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the reliance was placed on judicial precedents in case of CIT v. Dwarkadish Investment (P) Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) and CIT v. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del) which held that once an assessee furnishes evidence to prove the identity and genuineness of the transactions, the onus shifts to the Revenue to disprove it. 14.1. About the protective addition of Rs.75,00,000/- made in the hands of assessee, the counsel for the assessee argued that assessment can be considered protective only when there i…

Rewin Ceramics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4580/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Rewin Ceramic Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-21(3) A-410, Ansal Chamber-I Vs. New Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi PAN:AADCK5934F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. , Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA & Sh. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/07/2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of L…

Nitesh Rajhans Singh, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer -26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4114/MUM/2023[BAMPS4588L]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ed all the documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Re assessment on the basis of report from investigation wing is not valid the reliance is placed on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Allied Ltd (2012) 248 CTR 33. The Learned Assessing Officer has not brought any material information about the transaction of the appellant and hence the re-opening is invalid. The purchase cost of NCL shares was Rs. 175 it is not a penny stock. If the details about purchases would have brought on record ITO would have been convinced without doubt that the appellant has not p…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Nasshik, Nashik vs. Harsh Constructions Private Limited, Nashik

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

ITA 302/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133Section 133(5)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ted or disproved by the AO by bringing some material on record, the onus which lay on the assessee stood discharged and the addition made u/s 68 of the I T Act could not be sustained. Such ratio has been held in case of C/T vs. KamdhenuSteels and alloys Ltd. (361 ITR 220), ITAT Delhi Bench order in the case of ACIT vs. M/s TRN Engergy Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi Bench order in the ease of Central Circle vs. M/s Ravnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi Bench Quinine case-of ITO vs. M/s Nishit Fincap Pvt. Ltd., and, ITAT Delhi Bench order m the case of CIT vs. M/s Pinku Landfin Pvt. Ltd. The above judgement of Hon'ble Juri…

Vedic Foundation Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4550/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Ms.Astha Chandra[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Vedic Foundation Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 43-B, Ff, Dilshad Garden, Ward-26(2), New Delhi-110093. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaci8590C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024 Order Per N.K.Billaiya, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 31, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Grievances Of The Assessee Read As Under:-

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…d Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bombay), in connection with section 68 of the Act, it was held that when all the details have been given, non- appearance of the parities is irrelevant. (iii) Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Delhi), Shiv Dhoot Pearls 237 taxman 104 (Delhi) and Dwarkadhis Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Delhi), it was held that source of source of investment company is not required to be explained. (iv) In the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that if share application money is received by as…

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 91/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

…an or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role of ascertaining how much is a reasonable premium having regard to the circumstances of the case.” M/s Dreamtech Vs. DCIT 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. reported in 361 ITR 220 the Jurisdictional High Court held that no addition can be made in respect of share capital received from shareholders when the evidence has been placed on record and the Ld. AO has not led any material to the contrary. The relevant portion of the same are as under:- “35. The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the…

Dreamtech Constructions Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 90/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 68

ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak vs. Surender Dalal, Rohtak

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

ITA 7714/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7714/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Ito, Surender Dalal, Ward-4, Vs. Dalal Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana Near Petrol Pump, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7490/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Surender Dalal, Ito, Dalal Bhawan, Vs. Ward-4, Near Petrol Pump, Aayakar Bhawan, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Haryana Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aqlps2166C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

…cannot be issued on the basis of mere suspicion or to make further investment. Placing reliance on the following decisions, Ld. Counsel submits that reassessment merely on the basis of Investigation Wing is not valid: 1. CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.); 2. CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. 63 taxmann.com 170 (Del.); 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above contentions: - 1. PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del.); I.T.A.Nos.7714 & 7490/Del/2019 2. Hafizuddin Hazi vs. ITO, Ward-48(2), New Delhi in I…