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 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.

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

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

ITA 7490/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…

Vedic Foundation Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9170/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmavedic Foundation Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 26 (2), 43-B, 1St Floor, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 093. (Pan : Aaaci8590C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Order : 25.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…Further, ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon several case laws as under :- (i) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. 397 ITR 106 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bombay); (iii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Delhi); (iv) Shiv Dhoot Pearls 237 taxman 104 (Delhi); (v) Dwarkadhis Investment P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Delhi); (vi) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 7. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that assessee was requested to produce the Directors but they were not produced…

Sruthi Riedl, Hyderabad vs. ITO, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

ITA 126/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(47)

…dependent verification of facts does not constitute 'Reason to believe' U/s 147. The appellant relies on the following decisions : i. ACIT vs Dhariya constructions 328 ITR 515 (SC). ii. Sesasterlite Ltd —417 ITR 334 (Born). iii. Kamadhenu steel & Alloys Ltd - 248 CTR 33(Del). iv. RMG polymers - 396 ITR 5 (Del) V. R.K Machine Tools Ltd - 100 ITR (Trib) 73, [ITAT, Delhi] 9.2. Ld A.O acted on the borrowed satisfaction and not supplied the underlying material on which he relied up on. The appellant relies on: Charu Chains Jewellery (P) Ltd 456 ITR 352 (Del). 9.3. Mere entering into a JDA on 10.02.2016 does not result…

ITO, Ward-8(2), Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S. Indus Realty Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 666/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 68

…ITA No. 666/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Indus Realty Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 666/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,............................ Appellant Ward-8(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 5th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/s. Indus Realty Pvt. Limited,............Respondent Plot-6, Block-EN, Sector-5, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091 [PAN:AABCI4027R] Appearances by: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on beha…

DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Chaman Metalics Ltd., Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 610/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garganddr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…03.02.2016 (ITAT Kolkata Bench) ii) M/s. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (Hon'ble Supreme Court) in 159ITR 078 dt. 19.03.1986. iii) 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. iv) M/s. A-One Housing Complex Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in 110 ITD 361 dt. 18.05.2007. 3.2(g) Appellant submits that share applicant is a corporate body registered with ROC and share application money was received through proper banking channels. Share applicant was have registered PAN and filing regular ret…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J B Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

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

…Earthmetal electrical Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT [SLP No. 21073/2009 (SC)] 10. Earthmetal electrical Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT [(2005) 4 SOTO4S4 (Mum Trita)] 11. CIT V/s. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [SLP (Civil) CC15640 of 2012| 12. CIT V/s. Kamdhenu Steel Alloys Ltd. [(2012) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) (HC)] 13. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [SLP CC515 of2002 (SC)] 14. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [(2002) 256 ITR 0360 (Guj HC)] 15. CIT v/s Ujala Dyeing and Printing Mills (P) Ltd. [(SLP SC [317 ITR (ST.)(1)] 16. CIT v/s Ujala Dyeing and Printing Mills (P) Ltd. [328 ITR 437 (Guj HC)] 17. Principal CIT vs. D&H Enterprises [(2016) 241 Taxmann 0157 (…

M/S Saket Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 683/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 68

… ITO vs. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012)  CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom.)  Pr. CIT vs. Chain House International Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 561 (MP)  CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.)  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)  CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Mad.)  Pranav foundations Ltd. (2015) 229 Taxman 58 (Mad.) 8. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, stated that the assessee did not avail the opportunity given by the Assessing Officer and no such details were filed to…

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

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

…s of bank accounts through and to which the loan amount has passed, (vi) confirmations of creditors etc., then the onus lying on the assessee would stand discharged. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steels and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) held that when the money is received by cheque and is transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels, genuineness of transaction would be proved. Once these documents are produced, the onus cast on the assessee can be said to have been satisfactorily discharged. However, to discredit the documents produced by the assessee on th…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Universal Electronics and Communications P. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2253/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 153ASection 53ASection 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2253 /DEL/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 ACIT, Central Circle 15, Vs Universal Electronics & Communications New Delhi. P. Ltd., Pocket-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110055. PAN: AAACU0208M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR & Ms. Sweta Bansal, CA Department represented Shri T. Jamesh Singson, CIT(DR) by Date of hearing 19.09.2023 Date of pronouncement 21.09.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The Revenue has come in appeal chall…

ACIT, Cir.-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gold Rush Sales and Service Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 18/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 18/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata........................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Gold Rush Sales and Service Limited………….Respondent [PAN: AAACG 9537 B] C.O. No. 9/KOL/2021 Arising out of I.T.A. No.: 18/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Gold Rush Sales and Service Limited…………….Appellant [PAN: AAACG 953…

ACIT, Cir-1(3), Surat vs. Pravin Pannalal Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…hat the assessee had, in fact, received money from the said creditor and it came from the coffers of that very creditor. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu ITA No.289/SRT/2022 A.Y. 14-15 Pravin P Shah Steels and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) held that when the money is received by cheque and is transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels, genuineness of transaction would be proved. Once these documents are produced, the onus cast on the assessee can be said to have been satisfactorily discharged. This proves the genuineness of the transaction. We agree with the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu vs. M/S Mohd Asraf Sheikh, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 212/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Vinay Jamwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

…ective parcels of land have not yet been registered before the Registering Authority. 5. In addition to the above, reference was made of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors.[2012] 248 CTR 33 and other judicial precedents to canvass the proposition that the appellant had fully discharged its onus of explaining the credit in his accounts. 6. On a careful consideration of the aforesaid facts and evidences brought on record before the AO as well as in the present appellate proceedings, the AO's action of treating the advances received by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. M/S R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 144/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

…e, then the revenue is supposed to make thorough investigation before it could fasten the assessee with a liability u/s 68 of the Act is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT-II Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del). Also a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that now when the assessee had furnished documents to evidence genuineness of transaction and identity and creditworthiness of parties, then in case of failure by…

Manhar Yarns Private Limited, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 97/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…of a businessman 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.” 12. further, 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 in following manners:- 14 The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, it c…

Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…of a businessman 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.” 14. further, 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 in following manners:- “14. The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, cou…

Nelumbo Paints Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Haryana

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…f the Board of Directors and assume the role of ascertaining how much is a reasonable premium having regard to the circumstances of the case.” 11 Nelumbo Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 12. further, 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 in following manners:- “14. The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, cou…

Abhi Soaps Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 79/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…on 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.” 11 Abhi Soaps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 13. further, 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 in following manners:- “14. The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, cou…

Movefast Automobiles Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 101/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…of the Board of 11 Movefast Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Directors and assume the role of ascertaining how much is a reasonable premium having regard to the circumstances of the case.” 12. further, 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 in following manners:- “14. The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, it…

Vachitra Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8148/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…)] (ii) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. [357 ITR 146 (Del)] (iii) CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 212/2012 dated 11.4.2012 (Del)] (iv) Funnay Time Finvest Ltd. [ITA No. 645/2012 dated 13.1.2015 (Del) (v) CIT vs. M/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. [361 ITR 220 (Del)] (vi) CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 71/2015 dated 12.8.2015 (Del)]. 22. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is well-settled law that if no effort is made to controvert the contents of the affidavit, the same has to be accepted as true as held in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC). 23. The ld. Counsel for…

Madhava Home Decor Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…of a businessman 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.” 14. further, 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 in following manners:- 14 The important question which arises at this stage is as to whether on the basis of these facts, coul…