CIT v. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd.

306 ITR 35High Court2008#4499 most cited

What is CIT v. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for share application money cannot be made solely on the basis that the money deposited in the bank account of a third party was the assessee's money, if there is no material to link the assessee with the deposit.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd · section 68 · share application money · addition · unexplained cash credit · source of source · genuineness of transaction · accommodation entry · paper company · shell company · burden of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 68Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 234ASection 234B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

paper companysource of sourceshell companyadmission of additional evidenceshare application moneyaddition u/s 68rule 46agenuineness of the transactionsection 133(6)section 131cross objectionaccommodation entry

Judgments citing CIT v. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd.

Nidhi Rani, Panipat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…ITA No.3323/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani vs ITO 1361, Sector-25, Part-II Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat PAN-ARRPR9400P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, CA Respondent by Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.…

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…ne qua non for forming the opinion - CIT v. P. Mohanakala[2007] 161 Taxman 169 / 291 ITR 278 (SC). On perusal of assessment order it is clear that the AO did not consider the material available on record. 5.2 In the Case of CIT v/s Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del) it has been held that “AO made the addition towards unexplained cash credit on the basis that it was the assessee's money(Rs.22,97,000/-) which was deposited in cash in the account of FBSL and routed through different accounts and was received as unsecured loan by the assessee- on appeal, concurrent findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A) a…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…2022 Page 14 of 158 • Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 • Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court • CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd reported in 306 ITR 35 • CIT v. S. Kamaljeet Singh [2005] 147 Taxman 18(AII.) • S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 7.7 The appellant has further also contended in the written submission and emphasized during his oral argument that the Assessing Officer has failed to either controvert the documentary evidence filed by the app…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…2022 Page 14 of 158 • Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 • Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court • CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd reported in 306 ITR 35 • CIT v. S. Kamaljeet Singh [2005] 147 Taxman 18(AII.) • S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 7.7 The appellant has further also contended in the written submission and emphasized during his oral argument that the Assessing Officer has failed to either controvert the documentary evidence filed by the app…

Rewin Ceramics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4580/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…th the material placed on record, he should have enforced their attendance by using coercive powers available to him before making any addition under section 68 of the Act. 1. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Real Time Marketing (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 306 ITR 35 2. Food Corporation of India vs. Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. (SC) reported in 1990 1 SCC 68. 3. Nathu Ram Premchand vs CIT (Allahabad HC) reported in 49 ITR 561 4. CIT vs Genesis Comment (P) Ltd. reported in 163 Taxman 482 5. Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (SC) reported in 30 ITR 181. PROPOSITION 6: Once assessee establishes the transaction w…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

…1 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.201/RPR/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Vs M/s.Aryan Builders and- Raipur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Near Shitla Mandir, Machhi Talab, Gudiyari, Raipur PAN No. : AAJCA 3942 M AND Cross Objection No.09/RPR/2022) (Arising out of ITA No.201/RPR/2018) (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/s.Aryan Builders and – Vs ITO-2(1), Raipur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Near…

Singh Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT-Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2670/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2014-15 Singh Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 9, Bougain Villa Marg, Circle-24(2), Dlf Phase-2, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001. Pan: Aajcs3083M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ayushi Gupta, Ca & Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under:- “That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - 8, Dated 01/02/2019 Is Bad In Law • & On Facts. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,86,50,000/- Representing Unsecured Loan Creditors U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. • The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessee Has Failed To Discharge The Onus Of Proving Credit-Worthiness Of Lenders. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law By Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46A For Additional Evidence. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts By Stating That The Assessee Has Not Made Any Application U/R 46A For The Admission Of Additional Evidences. The Assessee Had Duly Filed An Application U/R 46A Dated 15/01/2019 For Additional Evidences Along With The Submissions & Other Evidences Which The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Consider & Thereby Incorrectly Alleged At Pg. 8,1St Para, 3Rd Line That No Application U/R 46A Has Been Filed. • That The Appellant Craves To Amend/Alter/Modify The Grounds Of Appeal And/Or To Raise Additional Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Ms Ayushi Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC); judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictionall High Court of Delhi in the case of Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd., 354 ITR 282 (Del); the judgement in the case of Real Time Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 306 ITR 35; and the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of AI Developers Pvt. Ltd., reported as 46 ITR (T) 321-ITAT Delhi, and other orders of the coordinate Benches of the ITAT to submit that no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Replying to the above, the ld…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…xman 141 (Allahabad) • Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 • Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court • CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd reported in 306 ITR 35 • CIT v. S. Kamaljeet Singh [2005] 147 Taxman 18(AII.) • S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 7.7 The appellant has further also contended in the written submission and emphasized during his oral argument that the Assessing Officer has failed to either controvert the documentary evidence filed by the ap…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…following case laws: • K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (SC) • A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Madras) • Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC), • CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd 307 ITR 334 (Del.), • CIT vs Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del.) , • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) 6.4 It was also submitted that the amount deposited in the bank account was out of sale of jewellery which had been held by the assessee as stock in trade and since the deposits in the bank account were out of sale of stock therefore the stock of the assessee has depleted and the…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…following case laws: • K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (SC) • A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Madras) • Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC), • CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd 307 ITR 334 (Del.), • CIT vs Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del.) , • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) 6.4 It was also submitted that the amount deposited in the bank account was out of sale of jewellery which had been held by the assessee as stock in trade and since the deposits in the bank account were out of sale of stock therefore the stock of the assessee has depleted and the…

ITO, War-4(1), Jaipur vs. Shri Amit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 267/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke I.T.O., Shri Amit Agarwal, Ward 4(1), Vs. 101, Near Pondrik Park, Jaipur. Brahampuri, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ARYPA 2525 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G.M. Mehta…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gtm Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3982/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3982/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs M/S Gtm Builders & Promoters Pvt. Circle-10(2), Ltd., G-5, Pushkar Enclave, Outer New Delhi Ring Road, Pachim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg2761R

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

…held that: “Not providing copy of adverse material, statements, opportunity to cross examine, opportunity to rebut the claim of revenue is gross violation of principal of natural justice. The addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained.” • 2008 -306 ITR 35 (Del) CIT Vs. Real Time Marketing Pvt. Ltd. • 2009 -315 ITR 265 (Del) CIT Vs. Jindal Vegetable Products • 1985 - AIR - 1416 (SC) U.O.I. Vs. Tulsi Ram Pate • 218 - IT- 721 (SC) Vasant C. Lal Vs. CIT The next allegation is that Shri Sunil Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Meet Enterprises has stated that he has no knowledge of the said firm. The appellant…

R.D. Foundation, Ghaziabad vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 7877/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SHFor Respondent: SH. SUNRENDER PAL, SR. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 R.D. FOUNDATION, VS. ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION) C/O RRA TAXINDIA, GHAZIABAD D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION CGO COMPLEX-I, PART-I, NEW DELHI – 49 HAPUR ROAD, (PAN: AABTR3819D) GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SH. SHUBHAM SOBIT, ADV. Department by : SH. SUNRENDER PAL, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.10.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relating…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…osed income of the Assessee. This has not been shown insofar as the present case is concerned and that has been noted by the Tribunal also.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.15 Infact, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd reported in 306 ITR 35 has held as under: “8. There is a finding of fact given by the two authorities namely CIT(A) and the Tribunal to the effect that:- The confirmation of M/s. ACL has been filed by the Assessee. The said company was assessed to tax. The source of ACL had been explained as out of transfer of funds from the accounts of M/s. BTL. Thus, the Assessee disc…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…osed income of the Assessee. This has not been shown insofar as the present case is concerned and that has been noted by the Tribunal also.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.15 Infact, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd reported in 306 ITR 35 has held as under: “8. There is a finding of fact given by the two authorities namely CIT(A) and the Tribunal to the effect that:- The confirmation of M/s. ACL has been filed by the Assessee. The said company was assessed to tax. The source of ACL had been explained as out of transfer of funds from the accounts of M/s. BTL. Thus, the Assessee disc…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…osed income of the Assessee. This has not been shown insofar as the present case is concerned and that has been noted by the Tribunal also.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.15 Infact, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd reported in 306 ITR 35 has held as under: “8. There is a finding of fact given by the two authorities namely CIT(A) and the Tribunal to the effect that:- The confirmation of M/s. ACL has been filed by the Assessee. The said company was assessed to tax. The source of ACL had been explained as out of transfer of funds from the accounts of M/s. BTL. Thus, the Assessee disc…

M/S. Ranutrol Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 6125/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…they refunded the amount of Rs.13.00 lacs through their cheques, which has wrongly been treated as accommodation entry by the ld. Authorities below. He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd., 306 ITR 35. 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record. It is notable that the ld. AR of the assessee could not be able to rebut the findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had no evidence to p…

Ranutrol Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2332/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…they refunded the amount of Rs.13.00 lacs through their cheques, which has wrongly been treated as accommodation entry by the ld. Authorities below. He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd., 306 ITR 35. 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record. It is notable that the ld. AR of the assessee could not be able to rebut the findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had no evidence to p…

M/S. Shri Gems, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2912/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shri Gems, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/2441, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Ward-33(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcfs2245L Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-28, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 234BSection 69C

…nos. 5 to 58 12 Shri Gems of the assessee’s paper book. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd. in ITA No. 429/2003 order dated 21.12.2015 of Hon’ble Delhi H.C. " CIT Vs Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 35 (Del.) " CIT Vs Diamond Products ltd. (2008) (9) TMI 943 (Del.) " CIT Vs Metal & Metals of India (2006) (11) TMI 630 (P&H) 18. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 19. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is no…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…[2007] 161 Taxman 169 / 291 ITR 278 (SC). On perusal of assessment order it is clear that the AO did not consider the material available on record. 22 Shri Radhey Ram Godara vs ITO, Ward- 3(5), Jaipur 5.2 In the Case of CIT v/s Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del) it has been held that “AO made the addition towards unexplained cash credit on the basis that it was the assessee’s money(Rs. 22,97,000/-) which was deposited in cash in the account of FBSL and routed through different accounts and was received as unsecured loan by the assessee- on appeal, concurrent findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A)…