CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, 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 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

…basis of material collected at the back of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) " CIT Vs Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " CIT Vs Achal Investments Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211 (Del.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 " Sarthak Securities Co. (P) ltd. Vs ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del.) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the s…

M/S. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2491/Del/2017) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs.DCIT, (ITA No. 2484 /Del/2017) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT,(ITA No. 2485/Del/2017) (Assessment Year 2012-13) Similarly in the case of CIT vs Sofia Finance Ltd (205 ITR 98) (Del) (FB), it has been held that if the shareholders are identified and it is established that they have invested money for the purchase of shares then the amount received by the assessee Co. would be regarded as a capital receipt and no additions can be made u/s 68 of the Act. Similar view has been expressed in various other judgments of Hon‟bl…

M/S. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aaccb2540F (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb6551B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2491/Del/2017) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs.DCIT, (ITA No. 2484 /Del/2017) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT,(ITA No. 2485/Del/2017) (Assessment Year 2012-13) Similarly in the case of CIT vs Sofia Finance Ltd (205 ITR 98) (Del) (FB), it has been held that if the shareholders are identified and it is established that they have invested money for the purchase of shares then the amount received by the assessee Co. would be regarded as a capital receipt and no additions can be made u/s 68 of the Act. Similar view has been expressed in various other judgments of Hon‟bl…

M/S. Metro Decorative Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

…s and the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions are not proved as all the three attributes required to be proved by the assessee as per the decision in CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. (2008) 216 ITR 195 (SC), CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98. Holding so Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. Hence, the assessee is in appeal now before us. 3. It is the argument of the Ld. AR that the reasons recorded by the AO in this case cannot be said to be reasons to believe that any income of the assessee had escaped assessment, for they do not 5 indicate the application of mind by…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…tity of the shareholders, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the shareholders. It is only after the initial burden is discharged that the onus shifts to the Revenue. This Court in Kamdhenu (supra) referred to CIT v. Sophia Finance, 205 ITR 98 which had held to the same effect. The Divine leasing (supra) and Sophia Finance (supra) judgments were reiterated by this ITA No.55/2017 Page 17 of 25 Court in Dwarkadhish (supra). Thus, the law in relation to Section 68 is well settled. 28. Applying the settled law to the present case, the facts narrated above reveal that the Assessee was unab…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. Best City Realtors (India) Pvt. Ltd

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed but in the

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ed matters Page 18 of 34 pronouncement that under these circumstances, section 68 cannot be invoked. a) CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. 192 ITR 287. b) Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del). c) CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd 299 ITR 268(Del.) d) CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 319 ITR5 (ST) 19. The Assessee also raised the point that the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal had been recorded behind the back of the Assessee and in the absence of cross-examination such evidence was of no evidentiary value. It was furthe…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. Best Realtors (India) Pvt. Ltd

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed but in the

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ed matters Page 18 of 34 pronouncement that under these circumstances, section 68 cannot be invoked. a) CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. 192 ITR 287. b) Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del). c) CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd 299 ITR 268(Del.) d) CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 319 ITR5 (ST) 19. The Assessee also raised the point that the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal had been recorded behind the back of the Assessee and in the absence of cross-examination such evidence was of no evidentiary value. It was furthe…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. Best City Developers India Pvt. Ltd

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed but in the

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ed matters Page 18 of 34 pronouncement that under these circumstances, section 68 cannot be invoked. a) CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. 192 ITR 287. b) Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del). c) CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd 299 ITR 268(Del.) d) CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 319 ITR5 (ST) 19. The Assessee also raised the point that the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal had been recorded behind the back of the Assessee and in the absence of cross-examination such evidence was of no evidentiary value. It was furthe…

M/S. Airads Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…reopen the assessments of such shareholders in accordance with law. 4.02 That the addition made to income is incorrect and is against law in view of the decision of The Full Bench of The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., 205 ITR 98, wherein it is held that where the shareholders exist, no further enquiry need be made, and the amount invested is a capital receipt in the hands of the recipient company. 4.03 That the addition made to income is incorrect and is against law in view of the decision of The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd., whe…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…"5. While setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Tribunal relied upon two decisions of this court, namely CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991J 192 ITR 287 and a Full Bench decision in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd [1994] 205 ITR 98. Several other decisions have been rendered by this Court following the above two decisions. The principle that has Page 3 of 8 been laid down by the various decisions rendered by this Court from time to time is that if the existence of the applicant is proved, normally no further inquiry is necessary. 6. Learned counsel for the Reven…

M/S. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Vs. The Acit, Circle-15(1), C.R. M/S. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 382, Bhera Enclave Pachim Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaacr5778B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. J.S. Kochar & U.S. Kochar, Advocates. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 14.08.2012, For Assessment Year 2000-01 Raising The Following Grounds : 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,90,000/- Received As Share Application Money, Despite The Fact That Out Of A Total Of 29 Share Applicants. I. 19 Applicants Whose Aggregate Investments Were Rs.10,15,000 Were Produced Before The A.O. & They Confirmed Their Investments. Ii. 2 Applicants With Aggregate Investments Of Rs.90,000 Had Since Died & Their Death Certificates Were Filed. Iii. Request Was Made To The Assessing Officer To Issue Summons U/S 131 To 4 Applicants With Aggregate Investment

…alongwith the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., having ITA No. 53/2005, 56/2005 and 305/2006. The Hon’ble High Court in para 6 of the judgment referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Sophia Finance Ltd. ( 1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB) and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Private Limited (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein it is observed that the assessee had given names and address of the alleged creditors and said creditors were income tax assessees and if the assessee could not produce the parties or did not attend in response to summons…