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 367,154 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

V E L Software Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1173/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 VEL Software Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, 5, Gurukrupa, Nashik Purbai Rajendra Complex, Opp. Hotel Vasco, Nashik Road, Nashik 422 101 PAN : AAACV7830N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue by Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date of hearing 17-05-2022 Date of pronouncement 18-05-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld.CI…

Prime Quality Consultants(P) Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), New Delhi

ITA 1350/DEL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 68

…ties should not put blinkers while looking at the documents before them. Surrounding circumstances are equally important." 3.19. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of N.R Portfolio observed as under: "29. In CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. [20131 350 ITR 407 (Delhi), this principle has been reiterated holding that the assessee and the Assessing Officer have to adopt a reasonable approach and when the initial onus on the assessee would stand discharged depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. In case of private limited companies, generally persons known to directors or shareholders, directly…

Surya Manufacturing P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6014/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6014/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Surya Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, 2937/3, Chuna Mandi, 1St Floor, Circle-24(2), Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccs2412B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 68

…o the conclusion that monies emanated from the coffers of the assessee company. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs. Youth Construction Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 197 and CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., 350 ITR 407, wherein, it has been held that onus is on assessee to prove the identity of share applicants, failing which it has to be concluded that the assessee company has introduced its own money through non- existing companies using the banking channels in the shape of share application money. In view of above, it is clear that the appellant 15 Surya Man…

Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2465/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Rishipal Investments & Ito, Finance (P) Ltd. Ward-15(4), 25/31, Ambros House, Vs New Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Pan-Aabcr5971K Assessee Revenue

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2006-07] Rishipal Investments and ITO, Finance (P) Ltd. Ward-15(4), 25/31, Ambros House, Vs New Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 PAN-AABCR5971K Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. V.K. Tulsian, CA & Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Parikshit Singh Sr.DR Date of Hearing 13.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23r…

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

…) 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 vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P) Ltd., 40 taxmann.com 458 (Del); (viii) CIT vs. NR Portfolio (P) Ltd., 29 taxmann.com 291 (Del); and (ix) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd., 306 ITR 110 (Del). 20. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has incorrectly deleted the addition made by the AO…

Sastvijay Investment & Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…not file any evidence in respect of share applicants that they actually exist. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs. Youth Construction Pvt. Ltd., 357 ITR 197 and CIT vs, Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., 350 ITR 407, wherein, it has been held that onus is on assessee to prove the identity of share applicants., failing which it has to be concluded that the assessee company has introduced its own money through non-existing companies using the banking channels in the shape of share application money. In view of above, it is clear that the appellant has failed t…

A.C.I.T., Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Viswakarma Residency, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

…fore, the impugned order of CIT(A) is confirmed and consequently the appeal of revenue is dismissed.[Para 29] 9. The AO has relied upon following case laws but the same are distinguishable on facts as under:- CIT Vs. Nupun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd [2013]350 ITR 407 (Delhi) In the above case, the AO issued summons under section 131` to companies from whom share capital was stated to be received. The summons were returned unserved with the remarks ‘ no such company’, which was confirmed by the Inspector sent to the addresses for verification. Whereas in the instant case, admittedly the notices issued u/s. 133…

ITO, Ward- 6(3), New Delhi vs. Cozy Footwear Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4284/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4284 /Del/2017 Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITO, Ward -6(3) Cozy Footwear Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. F-605, Rashmi Apartments, Vs. Harsh Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.08.2021 Date of 07-10-2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order d…

Adhoi Vyapar Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7308/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7308/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7309/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7310/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7311/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Adhoi Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Ito-9(1)(1), R.No. 205, 2Nd Floor, A-502, 234, Manish Garden Chs, बिाम/ Vs. 4 Bunglow, Andheri(W), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aahca-6296-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2009- 10 To 2012-13 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ry details and documents to establish the genuineness of the investment. In the present case, the investments have duly been substantiated by requisite documentary evidences. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Nipun Builders & Dev. Pvt. Ltd. (30 Taxmann.com 292) has already been distinguished by the Hon’ble Court in CIT V/s Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. (49 Taxmann.com 13) by observing that the assessee, in the present case, has been able to discharge the initial burden to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness as regards the transactions concerning the allotment of shares. We find that…

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

…d (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 207, 342 ITR 169. 252 CTR 187) 19 Shri Mahendra H. Shah 13. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxman (165) 14. CIT vs. Frostair (P.) Ltd. (26 taxmann.com 11, 210 Taxman 221) 15. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 284/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 & 284/DEL/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-31, 30, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCJ2199J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 23 06 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been fi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 & 284/DEL/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-31, 30, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCJ2199J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 23 06 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been fi…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad vs. Maithili Financials Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1656/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Maithili Financials Ward – 16(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccm 4074 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e produced before the Revenue to substantiate its claim. It is pertinent to mention that the decision relied by the Ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee are distinguished in the case CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited reported in 350 ITR 407 (Del.), CIT vs. OASIS Hospitalities Private Limited reported in 333 ITR 119 (Del.) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT reported in 386 ITR 162 (Kal.) wherein it was held that “where the assessee has invested in private limited companies higher burden is on the assessee to explain the source of the assessee’s investment”. In the case of…

Gurdish Kaur Khular, Jalandhar vs. ACIT( International Taxation), Circle, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 69

…lhi High Court in CIT v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485, and in the later decisions of Delhi High Court namely AGR Investment Ltd. (197 Taxman 177), India Terminal Connector System Ltd. (21 taxmann.com 69), Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (350 ITR 407), Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Hospital Ltd. (44 taxmann.com 230), High Court of Gujarat in the case of Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd. (72 taxmann.com 302) and by the Kerala High Court in Innovative Foods Ltd. V. UOI (2013) 356 ITR 389 (Ker). 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. The Ld. Co…

Jeevan Polymers (P) Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 93/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sri A. V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Sri R. Mujumdar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68 of the Act.” ITA No. 93/Hyd/2020 AY : 2014-15 Jeevan Polymers (P) Ltd., Hyd. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 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. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) where Honble Delhi Hi…

Kasper Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-14(2), New Delhi

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4691/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), 58, 1st Floor, Jaipuria New Delhi. Enclave, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAHCA6602J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No.5974/DEL/2017 & 6401/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ward-7(1), Ltd., New Delhi. F-1-200/13, Sector-3A, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAACE0061C (Appellant) (Respondent) I…

ITO Ward - 14(2), New Delhi vs. Kasper Information Technology Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4691/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), 58, 1st Floor, Jaipuria New Delhi. Enclave, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAHCA6602J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No.5974/DEL/2017 & 6401/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ward-7(1), Ltd., New Delhi. F-1-200/13, Sector-3A, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAACE0061C (Appellant) (Respondent) I…

ITO Ward - 13(3), New Delhi vs. Jingle Bells Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5527/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4691/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), 58, 1st Floor, Jaipuria New Delhi. Enclave, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAHCA6602J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No.5974/DEL/2017 & 6401/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ward-7(1), Ltd., New Delhi. F-1-200/13, Sector-3A, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAACE0061C (Appellant) (Respondent) I…

Jingle Bells Aluminium, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 13(3), New Delhi

ITA 5397/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4691/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), 58, 1st Floor, Jaipuria New Delhi. Enclave, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAHCA6602J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No.5974/DEL/2017 & 6401/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ward-7(1), Ltd., New Delhi. F-1-200/13, Sector-3A, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAACE0061C (Appellant) (Respondent) I…

Kasper Information Technology P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), New Delhi

ITA 510/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4691/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), 58, 1st Floor, Jaipuria New Delhi. Enclave, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAHCA6602J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No.5974/DEL/2017 & 6401/DEL/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, v. M/s. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ward-7(1), Ltd., New Delhi. F-1-200/13, Sector-3A, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAACE0061C (Appellant) (Respondent) I…