CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.

205 ITR 98High Court1994#265 most cited

What is CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. authority for?

To discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, an assessee must establish the identity of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction, confirming that the payment was truly made by them.

295

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. · Section 68 · cash credit · share capital · share application money · burden of proof · identity of shareholders · genuineness of transaction · 205 ITR 98 · unexplained money

Also reported as

70 Taxmann 69

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68 of the Income Tax ActSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

paper companysource of sourcesection 31creditworthiness of the creditorshare capital and share premiumsection 251(2)section 251(1)(a)live linkshare application moneyentry operatoradmission of additional evidenceaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

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

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)
Section 10Section 143(3)

…. CIT(E) has made wrong allegation without making any inquiry, if he was having any doubt he could have issued the summon or verified the PAN either own or through AO but he failed to do so and rather made wrong allegations. In the case of Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) is held applicable, i. e . what is required is only to establish that there existed a shareholder and the payment was really made by it, which stands established in the present case, as would appear from the above documents enclosed. ii. Genuine Transaction: Genuineness of transaction is also duly and fully established under the peculiar fa…

ACIT, Bulandshahr vs. M/S Rama Dairy Products Ltd, Bulandshahr

In the result ground no.2 is dismissed

ITA 4509/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. & Shri Kuldip Singh, J.M. Ita No: 4492/Del/2010 Assessment Year 2005-06 Rama Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle Bulandshahr Siyana Road Bulandshahr Bulandshahr Pan: Aaacr 9937 N

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 43B

…e share holders could not be proved by the assessee before the Assessing Officer? The amount has rightly been added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the light of the following judgements. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Limited(Del) 205 ITR 98 CIT vs. Active Traders P. Limited(Cal), 214 ITR 583 CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd., (Cal) 263 ITR 623 CIT vs. Bhagwati Jewels Ltd.(Del.) 201 ITR 461 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in reducing the addition of Rs.3,06,45,632/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low GP to Rs.5,21,51…

M/S Rama Dairy Products Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. DCIT, Bulandshahr

In the result ground no.2 is dismissed

ITA 4492/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. & Shri Kuldip Singh, J.M. Ita No: 4492/Del/2010 Assessment Year 2005-06 Rama Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle Bulandshahr Siyana Road Bulandshahr Bulandshahr Pan: Aaacr 9937 N

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 43B

…e share holders could not be proved by the assessee before the Assessing Officer? The amount has rightly been added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the light of the following judgements. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Limited(Del) 205 ITR 98 CIT vs. Active Traders P. Limited(Cal), 214 ITR 583 CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd., (Cal) 263 ITR 623 CIT vs. Bhagwati Jewels Ltd.(Del.) 201 ITR 461 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in reducing the addition of Rs.3,06,45,632/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low GP to Rs.5,21,51…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Prakash Colour (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1176/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 1176/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Prakash Colour (P) Ltd., 15A, 2Nd Floor, Sri Nagar Colony, Ward-14(3), New Delhi Near Bharat Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp5463B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Ashish Chadha & P. Srivastava, Cas Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 01.12.2010 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)

…tted that since Mr. Tarun Goyal was not produced for cross- examination of his statement, the matter can be restored to the AO. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ram Ratan Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All.) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd.(1994) 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) " CIT Vs Active Traders (P.) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 583 (Calcutta) " CIT Vs Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 623 (Calcutta) 22 Prakash Colour (P) Ltd. 10. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that entire addition was made by the…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shri K.V.Rmadoss, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1754/CHNY/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Duraipandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 133(6)

…Reliance was placed on Hon’le Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd 216 ITA No.1754/Mds/2012. :- 7 -: CTR 195, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 and judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd 294 ITR 661. 6. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was appreciative of the above contentions. According to him, assessee was owning 15 acres of land in 168 Kaatoor Villge, Gudavasal (TK) in Thiruvarur Dist, Tamil Nadu and had regularly shown agr…

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6365/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 131Section 68

…obdurately adhere to his suspicions and treat the subscribed capital as the undisclosed income of the company.’ 7. Taking note of the earlier judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 113 CTR (Del)(FB) 472 : (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB), the Court observed that the Full Bench had enunciated that s. 68 reposes in the ITO or AO the jurisdiction to inquire from the assessee the nature and source of the sum found credited in its books of accounts. If the explanation preferred by the assessee is found not to be satisfactory, further enquiries can be made by the ITO himself,…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Plastograph India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 3556/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 68

…The AO concluded that these facts clearly showed that the group is involved in introducing unaccounted income in the garb of Share Capital in their companies. 2.2. Accordingly, relying upon Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT 49 ITR 112 (SC); M/s Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi); Kamal Kishore vs CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155 (Raj.); CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finace Ltd. [2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Del.); C.Kant & Co. v CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal.); and CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt.Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) addition of Rs.50 lakh was made holding that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus as caste upon it by sectio…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 68

…vine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the assessee was a public limited company. 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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 647/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…"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. (199I) 192 ITR 287 and a Full Bench decision in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [J99-1} 205 ITR 98. Several other decisions have been rendered by this court following the above two decisions. The principle that has 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 Revenue submits that the c…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 306/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…"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. (199I) 192 ITR 287 and a Full Bench decision in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [J99-1} 205 ITR 98. Several other decisions have been rendered by this court following the above two decisions. The principle that has 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 Revenue submits that the c…

ITO Ward 17 (4) vs. Vital Communication Ltd

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2448/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ntity of the persons/ entities subscribing to the share capital was not doubted by the assessing officer and this fact is clear from the plain reading of the assessment order. Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Sophiya Finance Limited 205 ITR 98 held that once identity of the shareholder is established, no addition on account of share capital can be made in the hands of 11 the company-assessee. Appellant has also laced reliance on the following decisions. Anima Investment (P) Ltd. VS. ACIT 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) (TM) - Share application money - Where the share application money is recei…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5334/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the Bombay High Court that the assessing officer ought to have found out the details of share holders through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach them. 7.5.3 The Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 held that If the shareholders are identified and it is established that they have invested money in the purchase of shares then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt and to that extent the observations in the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), are correct but if, on the other hand, the a…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5333/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the Bombay High Court that the assessing officer ought to have found out the details of share holders through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach them. 7.5.3 The Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 held that If the shareholders are identified and it is established that they have invested money in the purchase of shares then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt and to that extent the observations in the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), are correct but if, on the other hand, the a…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5332/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the Bombay High Court that the assessing officer ought to have found out the details of share holders through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach them. 7.5.3 The Delhi High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 held that If the shareholders are identified and it is established that they have invested money in the purchase of shares then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt and to that extent the observations in the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), are correct but if, on the other hand, the a…

ITO Ward- 7 (4) vs. Sbs Properties & Finvest (P) Ltd

ITA 378/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. R.C. Rai, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…as finally stated that filing of mere confirmation letters did not discharge the onus that lay on the assessee and he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. 4 20x5 ITA No. 378/Del/2008 & Sofia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) to hold that the share capital is to be treated as income u/s 68 of the Act if the assessee company fails to prove the source of investment. The Ld. AO has further stated that the case of Stellar Investment 251 ITR 263 (SC) cannot be relied upon because it was a mere dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without assigning any reasons…

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Sbs Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2164/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. R.C. Rai, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…as finally stated that filing of mere confirmation letters did not discharge the onus that lay on the assessee and he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. 4 20x5 ITA No. 378/Del/2008 & Sofia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) to hold that the share capital is to be treated as income u/s 68 of the Act if the assessee company fails to prove the source of investment. The Ld. AO has further stated that the case of Stellar Investment 251 ITR 263 (SC) cannot be relied upon because it was a mere dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without assigning any reasons…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Gibs Computers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2066/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपी अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.2066/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपी अपी िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 2071/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year- 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-Central Circle-40 M/S.Gibs Computers Ltd. 6Th Room No.653, Floor, Radha Bhavan, 121 Nagindas Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs Master Road Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 023. Pan: Aabcg 0096 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Neelkanth Khandelwal राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Ms. Sasmita Misra--Cit-Dr, िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2016 Order लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य बी बी.आर आर. बा बा"करन "करन केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per B.R. Baskaran, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य बी बी आर आर बा बा "करन "करन अनुसार अनुसार The Revenue Has Filed These Two Appeals Challenging The Orders Passed By Ld Cit(A)-36, Mumbai For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Since Issue Urged In Both The Appeals Is Identical In Nature, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of Ld Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Sasmita Misra--CIT-DR
Section 68

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘जी’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “G” BENCH सव"ी बी.आर.बा"करन, लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसाई, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. B.R. Baskaran,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपी अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.2066/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपी अपी िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No. 2071/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year- 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-Central Circ…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S D.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…venue can always proceed against such shareholders and if necessary reopen their individual assessment. Similar decision is also taken in the case of CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del.), (2000) 251 ITR 287 (SC), CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.)(FB), CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (SLP no. CC 375/2008 arising out of ITA no. 53/2005 of the High Court of Delhi), CIT (Kolkata) v. M/s Shipra Retailers (P) Ltd. (SLP no. CC 451/2008 arising out of ITA no. 576/2004 of the High Court of Calcutta), CIT v. Pondy Metal & Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (SLP no. CC 12860/2007 arising out of ITA n…

Aditya Birla Telcom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5128/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pavan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No. 5128/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10) Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd., 5Th Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Floor, Windsor, Off. Cst Road, Income Tax, Near Vidyanagari, Kalina, Range-10(1), Santacruz (E), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, Church Gate, Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafca5315A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri & Shri Deepak Jain याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Deepkant Prasad,Cit-Dr : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 15Th October, 2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M.) : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 27-06-2013, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act. 2. The Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: Ground No. I: Want Of Natural Justice 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao U/S. 68 Despite The Fact That The Remand Report Of The Ao Confirmed That The Appellant Had Satisfied All The Three Tests, Viz: Identity Of P5 Asia Holding Investment (Mauritius) Ltd., (P5 Asia), Financial Capacity Of P5 Asia & Genuineness

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri &
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ong with other evidence AO through CIT-10, Mumbai forwarded to FT & TR-II CBDT, New Delhi for verification and investigation as per prescribed Rules. AO has empowered to investigate and verify in view of following cases i.e. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Delhi), CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi), CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del) (HC) and CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). As the documents furnished by appellant are under investigation and verification which was stated in remand report of AO. Under these circumstances, I uph…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saimangal Investrade Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2068/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Cent. Cir.-40, M/S. Saimangal Investrade Ltd., Room No.653, 6Th Floor, Radha Bhavan, 121, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nagindas Master Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs 4255R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : 1) Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R. & 2) Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.R. Revenue By : Dr. P. Daniel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: 1) Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 68

…after considering all the relevant decisions on the issue including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports P Ltd (supra), decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd reported in 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB) and the decision in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd (supra) has observed in paras 11 to 16 as under: "It is clear from the above that the initial burden is upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the share application money received by the assessee. In order to discharge this burden, the assessee is required to pr…