CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers

350 ITR 407High Court2013#310 most cited

What is CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers authority for?

For any sum credited in an assessee's books, including share application money, the assessee must prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Failure to discharge this onus under Section 68 renders the amount taxable.

264

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Nipun Builders & Developers · Nipun Builders · Section 68 · share application money · unexplained credits · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · onus on assessee · paper company · unsecured loans

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 131Section 148Section 1961Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

paper companyshare capital and share premiumcreditworthiness of the creditorsection 31source of sourcesection 251(2)principal officerlive linksection 251(1)(a)share application moneyentry operatoradmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Fastflow Securities (P) Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 32/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........………...…… Appellant Vs. M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd.........…....…….......….....…...…....... Respondent 41, N.S. Kolkata - 70001 [Pan: Aabcf8361P] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V.K. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15Th, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 13Th, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accounant Member: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 35 (Thirty Five) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order By Ld. Cit(A) Is Dated 02/09/2020 Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Revenue Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. We Note That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of I.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी िगरीश अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........………...…… Appellant vs. M/s. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd.........…....…….......….....…...…....... Respondent 41, N.S. Kolkata - 70001 [PAN: AABCF8361P] Appearances by: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri V.K. Jain, FCA, appeared…

ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4380/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Ward- 16 (1) Vs C-16, 101 First Floor, New Delhi Gurunanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110092 Pan No.Aahcm1300K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)Section 68

…copies of bank statement and use of banking channel by ignoring the ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the issue in the cases of CIT vs. N.R. portfolio (P) Ltd. (2014) 2 1TR-OL-68, CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers (P) Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 407 and CIT vs. Navodaya castles Pvt Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 306 on application of section 68 of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 6,18,650/-u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the di…

M/S. Goldline Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 608/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…ged would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both the sides - The assessee and the assessing authority - to adopt a reasonable approach. This view had been taken in the case of CIT v M/s Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 30 Taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)[2013], Page 7 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 608/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Goldline Dealers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was a private limited company, which cannot issue shares in the same manner .in which a public limited company does. It has to generally depend on persons known to its directors or shareholders directly or indirectly…

Gulmohar Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(2), Kolkata

ITA 270/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 5Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Gulmohar Distributors Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd., 396/4C, NSC Bose 9(2), Kolkata Vs. Road, 1st Floor, P.O. Naktala, Kolkata-700047. (PAN: AADCG2885K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the orde…

One Stop Commosale Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 636/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 636/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 One Stop Commosale Pvt. Ltd.....…………..................Appellant [PAN: AABCO 3848 A] Vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata…………………………………Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Narendra Kedia, Adv. appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, (D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of conc…

Maruti Tradexim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2), New Delhi

ITA 3615/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…arrive at. Once the materials are there, it is incumbent on the assessing authority to enquire into the same. It cannot overlook one or the other materials nor can it undertake a half-hearted enquiry”. iii. CIT V. Nipun Builders and Developers P. Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Delhi) -the assessee cannot simply furnish details and remain quiet even when summons issued to shareholders under section 131 return unserved and uncomplied. This approach would be unreasonable as a general proposition as the assessee cannot plead that they had received money, but could do nothing more and it was for the Assessing Officer to en…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi/ D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

ITA 660/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…n of Hon’ble Kolkata “C” Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/s KDG Projects Pvt. Ltd in I.T.A. No. 71l/Kol/2019, Order dated 02.11.2022. 8. Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (350 ITR 407 (Del.) 9. Decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cygnus Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 282/Kol/2012 Order dated 02.03.2016 10. Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal ITA No 179/2008 order dated 17.11.2009 11. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-1 Vs…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

ITA 650/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…n of Hon’ble Kolkata “C” Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/s KDG Projects Pvt. Ltd in I.T.A. No. 71l/Kol/2019, Order dated 02.11.2022. 8. Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (350 ITR 407 (Del.) 9. Decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cygnus Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 282/Kol/2012 Order dated 02.03.2016 10. Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal ITA No 179/2008 order dated 17.11.2009 11. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-1 Vs…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

ITA 641/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…n of Hon’ble Kolkata “C” Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/s KDG Projects Pvt. Ltd in I.T.A. No. 71l/Kol/2019, Order dated 02.11.2022. 8. Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (350 ITR 407 (Del.) 9. Decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cygnus Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 282/Kol/2012 Order dated 02.03.2016 10. Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal ITA No 179/2008 order dated 17.11.2009 11. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-1 Vs…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2006/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…ompany, the company has enclosed copy of the income tax returns filed by the share holders of the investor company ie., M/s.Fruition Resorts Ltd, Mauritius. In the case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P Ltd as reported in (2013) 30 taxman.com 292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income-tax Act that "In an appropriate case, if the facts and circumstances justify, it would be open to the AO to seek information from the assessee as to the creditworthiness of the creditor/share subscriber which may include information as to the sources of the credit…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2005/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…ompany, the company has enclosed copy of the income tax returns filed by the share holders of the investor company ie., M/s.Fruition Resorts Ltd, Mauritius. In the case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P Ltd as reported in (2013) 30 taxman.com 292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income-tax Act that "In an appropriate case, if the facts and circumstances justify, it would be open to the AO to seek information from the assessee as to the creditworthiness of the creditor/share subscriber which may include information as to the sources of the credit…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…ompany, the company has enclosed copy of the income tax returns filed by the share holders of the investor company ie., M/s.Fruition Resorts Ltd, Mauritius. In the case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P Ltd as reported in (2013) 30 taxman.com 292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income-tax Act that "In an appropriate case, if the facts and circumstances justify, it would be open to the AO to seek information from the assessee as to the creditworthiness of the creditor/share subscriber which may include information as to the sources of the credit…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2003/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…ompany, the company has enclosed copy of the income tax returns filed by the share holders of the investor company ie., M/s.Fruition Resorts Ltd, Mauritius. In the case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P Ltd as reported in (2013) 30 taxman.com 292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income-tax Act that "In an appropriate case, if the facts and circumstances justify, it would be open to the AO to seek information from the assessee as to the creditworthiness of the creditor/share subscriber which may include information as to the sources of the credit…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2002/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…ompany, the company has enclosed copy of the income tax returns filed by the share holders of the investor company ie., M/s.Fruition Resorts Ltd, Mauritius. In the case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P Ltd as reported in (2013) 30 taxman.com 292 Delhi,350 ITR 407 the Hon'ble High Court clarified the position for invoking section 68 of the Income-tax Act that "In an appropriate case, if the facts and circumstances justify, it would be open to the AO to seek information from the assessee as to the creditworthiness of the creditor/share subscriber which may include information as to the sources of the credit…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-I, Raipur vs. M/S Mahavir Infracon Private Limited, Rajnandgaon

ITA 125/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaarent Adie . / Ita No.125/Rpr/2018

Section 143(2)Section 68

…arrat siete aftracor earadio wag aI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER arent adie . / ITA No.125/RPR/2018 fereior af / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) beeeees 3rdrereff/Appellant M/s. Mahavir Infracon Private Limited C/o. Sumeet Fabrics, Jai Stambh Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PAN : AAHCM7501J3 senses yeaeit / Respondent Assessee by ‘Shri Amit M Jain, Advocate Revenue by ‘Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR eras a1 ante / Date of Hearing :27.07.202…

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

…7/Del./2019 1. ACIT vs. Nokoda Fashions (P) Ltd. 1716/Ahd/2012 (Ahm.); 2. ITA 6991-6997/Del/2014 ITA 6998-7004/Del/2014; 3. Dhingra Global Credence (P) Ltd. 1 ITR (T) 529; 4. CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. (228 Taxmann 88); 5. Nipun Builders & Dev. (P)Ltd. (350 ITR 407); 6. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. [2014] 42 Taxmann.com 339 (Delhi); 7. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P)Ltd. [2104] 42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi); 8. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [49 ITR 723] (Bombay H.C.); 9. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254) (Gauhati H.C); 10. CIT vs. Metachem Industries [245 ITR 160] (Madhya Pradesh H.C.); 11. S. Hastimal vs.…

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

…is open to the Revenue Department to make addition on account of alleged share capital u/s 68, where the assessee company has filed to show genuineness of its shareholders. 1. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. (3- taxmann.com 292, 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407, 256 CTR 34) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 1. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for a…

Shri Madan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 873/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54BSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 873/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2007-08 ACIT, cuke Shri Madan Lal Meena S/o Shri Ram Lal Meena Vs. Circle-2, Kota. Village- Manpura, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHPL 3510 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Sreeleathers

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/18/2022HC Calcutta14 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…ctions. Further, with regard to the statement of Mr. Ashish Kumar Agarwal, the assessee stated that the statement was not recorded in their presence and an opportunity of cross-examination 1 (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) ITAT 18 OF 2022 Page 6 of 14 ought to have been provided to the assessee. Further, it was contended that no addition could be made merely on the statement given by a third party without any additional evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer erred in treating all the 13 lenders as bogus when the findings which led to the issue of…

Bhadanes Hitech Technology Computer Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Nashik

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1289/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. ITO, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 PAN : AADCB9102E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Naimish Dixit Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 04-07-2022 Date of pronouncement 14-07-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nashik‟s order dated 29…