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.

Nuovo Pignone International Srl, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 999/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 Nuovo Pignone International Versus Dcit, Circle 2(2)(2), Srl, 6Th Floor, Building No. 7A, International Taxation, Standard Chartered Building, New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabcg3212A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…its order, when assessee’s specific averments on existence of PE remained un-rebutted both by the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220 (Delhi); (ii). ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd., 73 ITD 125(TM)(Del); (iii). CIT vs. Harikishan Jethalal Patel, 168 ITR 4721(Guj) (iv). Rajesh Babubhai Damania vs. ITO, 251 ITR 541 (Guj); (v). Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 122 TTJ 577(SB)(Mum). 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP, learned Departmental Re…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 65/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…to all the entities giving unsecured loans cannot be sole basis for making addition u/s 68 of the Act”. 20. It would be per pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kamadhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 and same read as under: “6. What kind of proof is to be furnished by the assessee, is the question. It has come up for discussion in various judgments rendered by this Court, other Courts as well as the Supreme Court. The law was discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance…

ACIT(Central)-2, Indore vs. Shri Aakash Shukla, Indore

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 43/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-1 Shri Aakash Shukla Indore 94, Banganga Main Road Vs. Indore

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT(Central)-1 Shri Aakash Shukla Indore 94, Banganga Main Road Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) PAN: DAWPS 9613 A Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, ARs Date of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14.12.2021 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3…

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…ransaction is to be demonstrated by showing that 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 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. Thereafter, it is for the Assessing Officer to scrutinize the same…

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Tanishque Trade Link Pvt. Ltd, Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 263Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [PAN : AACCT7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA Revenue by : Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronounce…

Asha Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 22/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…held that the statement of some other person which was recorded was the basis of reassessment and the assessee was asked to explain it but the statement was itself not furnished to the assessee. 2.5.3. In CIT v/s Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 68 DTR 38/361 ITR 220 (Delhi HC) held that notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the AO 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 led to be not justified. 2.5.4. Al…

Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(3), Jaipur

ITA 8/JPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…held that the statement of some other person which was recorded was the basis of reassessment and the assessee was asked to explain it but the statement was itself not furnished to the assessee. 2.5.3. In CIT v/s Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 68 DTR 38/361 ITR 220 (Delhi HC) held that notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the AO 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 led to be not justified. 2.5.4. Al…

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dausa

ITA 27/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…held that the statement of some other person which was recorded was the basis of reassessment and the assessee was asked to explain it but the statement was itself not furnished to the assessee. 2.5.3. In CIT v/s Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 68 DTR 38/361 ITR 220 (Delhi HC) held that notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the AO 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 led to be not justified. 2.5.4. Al…

Smt. Saroj Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

ITA 1345/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…held that the statement of some other person which was recorded was the basis of reassessment and the assessee was asked to explain it but the statement was itself not furnished to the assessee. 2.5.3. In CIT v/s Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 68 DTR 38/361 ITR 220 (Delhi HC) held that notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the AO 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 led to be not justified. 2.5.4. Al…

Shri Kailash Chand Gehlot, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3) Jaipur

ITA 1279/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…held that the statement of some other person which was recorded was the basis of reassessment and the assessee was asked to explain it but the statement was itself not furnished to the assessee. 2.5.3. In CIT v/s Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 68 DTR 38/361 ITR 220 (Delhi HC) held that notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the AO 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 led to be not justified. 2.5.4. Al…

Shri Shrinivas Tripathi, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 471/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…held that the statement of some other person which was recorded was the basis of reassessment and the assessee was asked to explain it but the statement was itself not furnished to the assessee. 2.5.3. In CIT v/s Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 68 DTR 38/361 ITR 220 (Delhi HC) held that notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the AO 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 led to be not justified. 2.5.4. Al…

Shri Arvind Kumar Sengwa, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

…held that the statement of some other person which was recorded was the basis of reassessment and the assessee was asked to explain it but the statement was itself not furnished to the assessee. 2.5.3. In CIT v/s Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 68 DTR 38/361 ITR 220 (Delhi HC) held that notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the AO 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 led to be not justified. 2.5.4. Al…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited, Banderdewa

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

ITA 87/GTY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 80I

…on money/capital cannot be treated as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. This view has been taken in the following cases: (i) Principal C.I.T. vs. Soft-line Creations Pvt. Ltd. (2016)387 R 636 (Delhi) (ii) C.I.T. vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) (iii) C.I.T. vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 319 ITR (St.) 5 (S.C.) 320 (iv) C.I.T. vs. Sameer Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) (v) C.I.T. vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 289 (Delhi) (vi) C.I.T. vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 R 298 (Delhi) (vii) C.I.T. vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (D…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited, Banderdewa

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

ITA 86/GTY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 80I

…on money/capital cannot be treated as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. This view has been taken in the following cases: (i) Principal C.I.T. vs. Soft-line Creations Pvt. Ltd. (2016)387 R 636 (Delhi) (ii) C.I.T. vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) (iii) C.I.T. vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 319 ITR (St.) 5 (S.C.) 320 (iv) C.I.T. vs. Sameer Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) (v) C.I.T. vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 289 (Delhi) (vi) C.I.T. vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 R 298 (Delhi) (vii) C.I.T. vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (D…

DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 13(2)(2) v. M/s. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi JN, 1st Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road SV Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAHCS1597A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Prateek Jain Department Represented by : Richa Gulati Date of Hearing : 07.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHM…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S Galaxi Filaments, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 35/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.35/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Galaxy Filaments Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Room 13-14, Sanskruti Industrial Vs. 6Th No.612, Floor, Aayakar Estate, Nr. Diamond Rose Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Surat- Nursery, Laskana, Surat-395013 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapfg 6252 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kuamr, Sr-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ransaction is to be demonstrated by showing that 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 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. Thereafter, it is for the assessing officer to scrutinize the same…

Farha S. Kadri, Bilimora vs. ITO, Ward-2, Navsari

In the result, the original ground No

ITA 331/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…ssing Officer solely and mechanically relied on such information from other sources, he cannot proceed for reassessment. To support such submission, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloy Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Del) and CIT Vs Multiplex Trading & Ind. Co. Ltd. (2015) 128 DTR 217 (Del). 8. The ld. AR further submits that the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the objection against the reopening, thus, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order in violation of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd. 259 ITR 19 (S…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Orient Trading Co Ltd Vs CIT 49 ITR 723 Bombay HC CIT Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 Bombay HC 21. The Ld. AR submits that the following principles emerge from the vario…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Orient Trading Co Ltd Vs CIT 49 ITR 723 Bombay HC CIT Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 Bombay HC 21. The Ld. AR submits that the following principles emerge from the vario…

ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Sentia Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Adv./Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…plethora of decisions across jurisdictions including in CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & plethora of decisions across jurisdictions including in CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & plethora of decisions across jurisdictions including in CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33 (De!hi)(High Court). Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33 (De!hi)(High Court). 5.1.9 Further, as observed above, in the instant case, the assessing officer 5.1.9 Further, as observed above, in the instant case, the assessing officer 5.1.9 Further, as observed above, in the instant case, the assessing officer was acting on mere suspicion and trying to ma…