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 366,005 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.

ACIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Nazar Trading Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2995/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: None
Section 68

…s found that the transaction is not genuine or the payer, the AO would have to confront the Assessee with such material and, thereafter, draw an inference as to the merits of the explanation provided by the Assessee. In CIT v. Sophia Finance Pvt. Ltd.: (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del), a full Bench of this Court had held as under:- "What is clear, however, is that section 68 clearly permits an Income-tax Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. In other word…

ACIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Nazar Trading Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2994/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: None
Section 68

…s found that the transaction is not genuine or the payer, the AO would have to confront the Assessee with such material and, thereafter, draw an inference as to the merits of the explanation provided by the Assessee. In CIT v. Sophia Finance Pvt. Ltd.: (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del), a full Bench of this Court had held as under:- "What is clear, however, is that section 68 clearly permits an Income-tax Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. In other word…

ACIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Nazar Trading Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2993/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: None
Section 68

…s found that the transaction is not genuine or the payer, the AO would have to confront the Assessee with such material and, thereafter, draw an inference as to the merits of the explanation provided by the Assessee. In CIT v. Sophia Finance Pvt. Ltd.: (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del), a full Bench of this Court had held as under:- "What is clear, however, is that section 68 clearly permits an Income-tax Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. In other word…

ACIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Nazar Trading Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2992/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: None
Section 68

…s found that the transaction is not genuine or the payer, the AO would have to confront the Assessee with such material and, thereafter, draw an inference as to the merits of the explanation provided by the Assessee. In CIT v. Sophia Finance Pvt. Ltd.: (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del), a full Bench of this Court had held as under:- "What is clear, however, is that section 68 clearly permits an Income-tax Officer to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of any or all the sums credited in the books of account of the company irrespective of the nomenclature or the source indicated by the assessee. In other word…

Bestline Properties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 3500/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 68

…to reopen the assessments of such shareholders in accordance with law. b. 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. c. 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., wherei…

ACIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Redkite Capital P. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6742/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…of the AO that the source of investment made by the aforesaid four companies is unexplained but on contrary the appellant had explained the source though under the law no obligation is cast upon the appellant. The appellant relied on the following judgments: 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB), CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. 333 ITR 119 (Del), CIT vs. Oasis Hospitality (P) Ltd. 8.11. The appellant submitted that in the case of Oasis Hospitality (P) Ltd., the Jurisdictional high Court, after considering the various judgments as propounded by the Delhi high Court from time to time in relation to the share capital u/s 68 of the Act…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3 vs. M/S Gtm Builder and Promoters Pvt. Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/180/2021HC Delhi02 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 153ASection 260A

…justified in holding the share application money received from M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was genuine, in view of the field enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer and also the decision of this Hon 'ble Court in the case of CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98(Del)? C. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on the prevailing law, Hon'ble ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of raising of funds of Rs. 1,92,00,000/- from 48 flats ignoring the incriminating material found Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:02.05.202…

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2048/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…) DLT 277(DB) (Del):- By refereeing to these cases the Learned AO has mentioned that the following cases have already been referred earlier in the above mentioned decisions of Delhi High Court:- a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Limited [1994] 205 ITR 98 b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited [2008] 319 ITR 9.1 By placing reliance on all the above mentioned decision of various Hon'ble Courts, the AO has attempted to prove the following facts:- a) That mere filing of income tax file n…

Ksj Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 1110/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ksj Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [Pan:Aadcc-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, FCA and Shri. Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मंजुनाथा. जी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी मनोमोहन दास, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. KSJ Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax, 2nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [PAN:AADCC-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. B. Ram…

D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…ports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)  CIT vs. Dolfin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190 (Delhi)  DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (127 Taxman 523)  Sri Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. CIT 283 ITR 377 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Down Town Hospitals Ltd. 267 ITR 439 (Gau)  Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) Full Bench  ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 132  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [159 ITR 78 (SC)]  Balurghat Transport co. vs. ACIT 63 TTJ 303 (Cal ITAT).  ITO vs. Chichinga Fatika Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1279/Kol/2008; Assessment Year 2005-06  Midas Golden Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 124…

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4595/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh K. Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…bdurately 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 LD. A.O. 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 him…

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…sessee would stand IT(SS)A Nos.15 & ITA No.619/SRT/2018 A.Ys. 11-12 & 14-15 Sh. Kalubhai D Golaviya discharged. It is so held in several judgments such as CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi), CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 /[1993] 70 Taxman 69 (Delhi), CIT v. Kundari Investment Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 626/130 Taxman 689 (Cal.) and CIT v. Rathi Finiease Ltd. [2008] 215 CTR 429 (M.P.). The Creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor can be proved by producing the bank statement of the creditor showing that it had sufficient balance in its accounts to enable it…

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Siyaram Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar

ITA 373/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…d above, the appellant rebutted the finding of the AO during the assessment proceedings that there was no violation of any provisions of the IT Act if the shares were not handed over to the investors. The appellant relied on the decision of Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 Delhi wherein it was held that any violation of the provisional of the Companies Act was a matter of concern only of the appropriate authority under that Act. The Assessing Officer conducted enquiries about the investors through Investigation wing of the Department and also by issuing notice u/s 133 (6) of the IT Act and obtained replies of the in…

DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68Section 80G

…(a) benamidars or (b) fictitious persons or (c) that any part of share capital represented company's own income from undisclosed sources Tribunal, accordingly, deleted additions - Whether Tribunal was justified in doing so - Held, yes. 7. Sophia Finance Ltd. [205 ITR 98(Del) Under section 68 it is clear that the ITO has jurisdiction to make enquiries with regard to the nature and source of a sum credited in the books of account of an assessee and it would be immaterial as to whether the amount so credited is given the colour of a loan or a sum representing the sale proceeds or even receipt of share application mo…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S Galaxi Filaments, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 35/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.35/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Galaxy Filaments Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Room 13-14, Sanskruti Industrial Vs. 6Th No.612, Floor, Aayakar Estate, Nr. Diamond Rose Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Surat- Nursery, Laskana, Surat-395013 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapfg 6252 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kuamr, Sr-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…d, (vi) confirmations of creditors etc., then initial onus lying on the assessee-company would stand discharged. It is so held in several judgments such as CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi), CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 /[1993] 70 Taxman 69 (Delhi), CIT v. Kundari Investment Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 626/130 Taxman 689 (Cal.) and CIT v. Rathi Finiease Ltd. [2008] 215 CTR 429 (M.P.). The Creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor can be proved by producing the bank statement of the creditor showing that it had sufficient balance in its accounts to enable it…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa vs. Pritham & Prathik Hospitals Private Limited, Kadapa

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…ver, it held that what inference is to be drawn is a question of fact and the tribunal's finding on that question is final. Thus, the facts of the case are entirely different. 9. Following the decisions of different courts in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98, Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 289 (Cal), CIT v. Ruby Traders 86 Exporters Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 300 (Cal) and CIT v. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 623 (Cal) etc, the law is now absolutely clear that unless the assessee is able to establish the identity of the subscribers, their creditworthiness as well as genuin…

Ns Papers Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4200/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/s NS Papers Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Income 8th K.M. Stone, Meerut Road, Tax, Muzaffar Nagar, Vs Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar PAN-AAACR7902B Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Rinku Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffrnagar, dated 23.03.2018 pertaining to…

Shri Ankush Gokhroo, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 387/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Diamond & Color Stones Through His Proprietorship Concern

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,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. 387/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Shri Ankush Gokhroo The ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s Gokhroo Gems, Ward-1(5) J-89, Flat No. 402, Gurukurpa Apartment, Jaipur. Adrash Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGAPG 6075 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Piyus…

D. J. Stock Broking Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1570/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 68

…n Vs. ITO (Mad.) 315 ITR 105 ii) CIT Vs. Preusion Finance P. Ltd. (Cal.) 208 ITR 465 iii) CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd., Cal. 187 ITR 596 and iv) KCN Chandrasekhar Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bang.) 66 TTJ 355. v) CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (Del.FB) 205 ITR 98 vi) CIT Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (Cal.) 263 ITR 623. vii) CIT Vs. Rathi Finlease Ltd. (MP) 215 CTR 429. viii) Dingra Global Credence P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT) Del. ix) Agarwal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (ITAT, Indore) 135 ITD 270. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, judicial pronouncements and also the facts…

Hariyana Steel Centre (Kdm) Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1151/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, Sr.AR
Section 68

…nature of the transaction placed before them by the Assessing Officer. In the light of above facts it becomes the bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to examine the sources of the source as was held by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Sophia Finance Ltd., (205 ITR 98). In that case it was held by the Hon'ble Court that: “the Income-tax Officer may even be justified in trying to ascertain the source of the depositor assuming he is identified in order to determine whether the depositor is mere name lender or not. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Income Tax Officer has jurisdiction to make enquiries with r…