What is CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. authority for?

Amounts received from bogus share transactions, where a private limited company sells shares to unrelated parties at a huge premium and then repurchases them at a loss shortly after, are taxable as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such transactions lies solely on the assessee.

How many judgments cite CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd.?

132 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. (361 ITR 258), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. come up under?

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

CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. (361 ITR 258)

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WISDOM EXPORT PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2172/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2007-08]

Section 143(3)Section 68

…High Court in the following cases: (a) CIT Vs Nova Promotors & finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012)342 ITR 169 (b) CIT Vs Youth Construction Pvt. Itd. (2014) 44 Taxman 364 (c) CIT Vs Navodaya Castles Pvt. Itd. (2014) 50 Taxman 364 (d) CIT Vs MAT Academy Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 258 (ii) On the fact and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT Appeal was erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3 Crore made on account addition u/s 68 of the IT Act without appreciating facts that the assessee failed to explain the same in his books of account during the course of assessment proceeding and remand report proceedings (iii) On the fact…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT, MEERUT vs. DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARATI CHARITABLE TRUST, DEHRADUN

ITA 2553/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 2552 & 2553/Del/2024 Dr. JagatNarainSubharti Charitable Trust (AYs: 2012-13 & 2013-14) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2552 & 2553/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) DCIT, Central Circle Vs. Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Aaykar Bhawan, Near Charitable Trust Bhainsali Ground, Nand Ki Chowki, Meerut, UP – 250001 AamWala Road, Kotra Santaur, Prem Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand – 248007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFTS4572G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant b…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT , INCOME TAX OFFICE, MEERUT vs. DR. JAGAR NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST, DEHRADUN

ITA 2552/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 2552 & 2553/Del/2024 Dr. JagatNarainSubharti Charitable Trust (AYs: 2012-13 & 2013-14) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2552 & 2553/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) DCIT, Central Circle Vs. Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Aaykar Bhawan, Near Charitable Trust Bhainsali Ground, Nand Ki Chowki, Meerut, UP – 250001 AamWala Road, Kotra Santaur, Prem Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand – 248007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFTS4572G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant b…

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

ITA 1633/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 143(3)

…entity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was solely on assessee and merely because statutory approvals had been obtained by assessee, it did not sanctify transaction 17 CIT VS MAF Academy (P.) Ltd 163 to Where assessee, a private limited (2014) 361 ITR 258 (Delhi) 182 company, sold its shares to unrelated parties at a huge premium and thereupon within short span of time those shares were purchased back even at a loss, share transactions in question were to be regarded as bogus and, thus, amount received from said transactions was to be added to assesee's taxable income under section 68 13. We have…

ROSELABS POLYMERS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 425/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 An Exparte Appellate Order Was Passed. For The Assessment Year 2012-13 One Shri Sagar Vasoya Appeared Before Ld. Cit(A), However The Assessee Appeal Was Dismissed By A Detailed Speaking Order.

Section 143(3)Section 68

…19 & 28/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 6 Roselabs Polymers Ltd. vs. DCIT Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC), CIT vs. Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal), CIT vs. Empire Builtech P. Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del) etc. Relying upon various case law quoted by Hon’ble Tribunal as well as judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd (supra) I completely, agree with conclusion drawn by the A.O and hereby confirm the addition of Rs.16,61,50,000/- made by the A.O on account of investments made to its share capital Thus ground of appe…

ROSELABS POLYMERS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 28/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 An Exparte Appellate Order Was Passed. For The Assessment Year 2012-13 One Shri Sagar Vasoya Appeared Before Ld. Cit(A), However The Assessee Appeal Was Dismissed By A Detailed Speaking Order.

Section 143(3)Section 68

…19 & 28/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 6 Roselabs Polymers Ltd. vs. DCIT Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC), CIT vs. Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal), CIT vs. Empire Builtech P. Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del) etc. Relying upon various case law quoted by Hon’ble Tribunal as well as judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd (supra) I completely, agree with conclusion drawn by the A.O and hereby confirm the addition of Rs.16,61,50,000/- made by the A.O on account of investments made to its share capital Thus ground of appe…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. JANITOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result additions as made by the Assessing Officer on this score are directed to be deleted

ITA 3040/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Section 137Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer- Vs. M/s. Janitor Infrastructure 10(2)(1) Private Limited 517, 5th Floor B-426, 4th Floor Aayakar Bhavan 57, NBC Complex M.K.Road, Plot No.43, Sector-11 Mumbai-400 020 CBD Belapur Thane, Navi Mumbai-400614 PAN/GIR No.AACCJ1251B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashwani Kumar Revenue by Shri Ankush Kapoor Date of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the…

M/S. KOPRAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -7(1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 501/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR

Section 133Section 143Section 68

…ck of transactions and thus PAN cannot be blindly and without consideration of surrounding circumstances treated as sufficient disclosing the identity of individual". 21. We further observe that Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V Empire Biotech P Ltd 361 ITR 258 (Del), has held that when Asst. Year 2009-10 assessee. does not produce evidence or tries to avoid the appearance before the Assessing authority it necessarily creates difficulties and prevents ascertainment of the truth and correct facts as the Assessing Kopran Limited; A.Y. 14–15 Officer is denied the advantage of the attendance or factual asse…

MARUTI RUB PLAST P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7346/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7346/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Maruti Rub Plast Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O M. K. Bhatt & Co., Ward-16(2), 302, Triveni Complex, E-10-12, New Delhi Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcm4647P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10 .2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e, placing reliance on the following judgments namely,  Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1716/Ahd./2012 dated 18.08.2016  Pee Aar Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT 96 taxmann.com 602 (Delhi-Trib.) 4 Maruti Rub Plast Pvt. Ltd.  CIT Vs. Empire Biotech Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del.)  CIT Vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 320/2012 dated 25.08.2014 (Del.)  CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 134/2012 dated 21.12.2012  CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No(s). 195/2015 dated 07.12.2017 (SC)  CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal.)  CIT Vs. Prec…

RAJAT ALLOYS (P) LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9087/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), Rajat Alloys (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-15-25, UPSIDC Industrial Area, South Side, GT Road, Ghaziabad (UP) PIN: 201001 PAN :AADCR6415J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi, CA Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 31.08.2022 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 07.10.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi pertaining to assessment ye…

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ,UTTARPRADESH vs. CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…(2019) 102 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi)/[2019] 261 Taxman 270 (Delhi)/[2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi) 3. ITO vs. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.4778/Del/2013) 4. Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT[2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. (361 ITR 258) 6. CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) 8. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi)/[2014] 222 Taxman 157 (Delhi) (MAG)/[2014] 264 CTR 258 (Delhi) 1. After considering the rival submissions…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. LUXMAN BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R Co No.93/Del/2018 (Ita No.817/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd November, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. Co No.93/Del/2018 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…see has miserably failed to prove all the three ingredients required as per the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the AO was fully justified:- (i) CIT vs MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 258; (ii) CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. 367 ITR 306; (iii) Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom); 18 CO No.93/Del/2018 (iv) Prem Castings (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 88 taxmann.com 189; (v) CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 350 ITR 407; (vi) CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd.,342 ITR 169; (vii) CIT v…

MAHENDRA H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD- 4 (1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…2019 5. Pr.CIT -6, New Delhi vs NDR Prompters Pvt Ltd ITA 49/2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 17.01 .2019 6. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del) 7. Navodava Castle Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (2015-TIOL-314-SC-IT) 8. CIT Vs MAP Academy (P.) Ltd (361 ITR 258) 9. Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd Vs CIT (2016] 385 ITR 399 (Cal) 10. Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd Vs CIT (2016- TIOL-207-SC-IT (Supreme Court) 11. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292, 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407, 256 CTR 34) 12. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 2…

ACIT, CC- 15, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA REALTORS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

ITA 3911/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…on & Steel (P) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com(SC)/[2019] 262 Taxman 74(SC) ii. Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) iii. Konark Structural Engineering (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 255(SC) iv. CIT vs MAF Academy (P) Ltd. 361 ITR 258 v. CIT vs Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del.) 12. The learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly supported the order of the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has filed all the requisite details before the AO on 30th March 2015 i.e. before completion of assessment. The notice issued u/s 133(6) were…