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.

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

…my opinion has no criteria it is only source and availability of fund which remain the factor to observe accordingly the addition made by A.O u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. 5.7. Ld AR also placed reliance on the judgments in CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Delhi), CIT vs. Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. {[2014] 49 taxmann.com 13 (Del.) 361 ITR 155 (Del.), Commissioner of Income- Tax vs Winstral Petrochemicals p. Ltd. 201 1 330 ITR 603 (Del.), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi), CIT v. Stellar Investments Ltd 192 ITR 287 (Del.) & CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 2001 251 ITR 26…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6956/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca 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 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies Of Mmg Group & Has Business Interest In Several Segments Like Chartering & Leasing Of Vessels To Ongc & Shipping, Etc. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015. During The Course Of Search, Documents & Data Storage Devices, Etc., Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th July, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.12,15,49,580/-. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 20Th May, 2016 Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Certain Information. The Assessee Complied To The Said Questionnaire By Filing The Requisite Details.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…y of funds required. Thus, it is only source and availability of fund which remains the factor to observe accordingly the addition made by A.O u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. 5.7. Ld AR also placed reliance on the judgments in CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Delhi), CIT vs. Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. {[2014] 49 taxmann.com 13 (Del.) 361 ITR 155 (Del.)}, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Winstral Petrochemicals p. Ltd. 2011 330 ITR 603 (Del.), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi), CIT v. Stellar Investments Ltd 192 ITR 287 (Del.) & CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 2001 251 ITR 263…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs Moon Beverages Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J Co No.06/Del/2019 (Ita No.6955/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Moon Beverages Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca 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 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.06/Del/2019 The Assessee Has Filed Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…y of funds required. Thus, it is only source and availability of fund which remains the factor to observe accordingly the addition made by A.O u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. 5.7. Ld AR also placed reliance on the judgments in CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Delhi), CIT vs. Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. {[2014] 49 taxmann.com 13 (Del.) 361 ITR 155 (Del.)}, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Winstral Petrochemicals p. Ltd. 2011 330 ITR 603 (Del.), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi), CIT v. Stellar Investments Ltd 192 ITR 287 (Del.) & CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 2001 251 ITR 263…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…uty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the repudiation.” 93 (1993) 113 CTR (Del) (FB) 472 : (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 122 of 150 86. The Court referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Nova Promoters Finlease Private Limited 94 wherein it was held that in view of the link between the entry providers and incriminating evidence, mere filing of PAN, acknowledgement of IT Returns of…

M/S. Kanha Capital Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 5, New Delhi

ITA 2916/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh[CIT] – D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ntion of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not also there on the statute at that point of time. Before the appeal in Steller Investment Ltd. was dismissed by the apex court, the question had cropped up in the case of CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. reported in [1994] 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) [FB] wherein a special bench held as follows (page 104) : Page No : 0205 "As we read section 68 it appears that whenever a sum is found credited in the books of account of the assessee then, irrespective of the colour or the nature of the sum received which is sought to be given by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has the jurisdiction…

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 990/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…rce of the receipt is not satisfactorily established by the assessee. The submission that any further investigation is futile because the money was received on capital account is unacceptable. The Special Bench in the case of CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) opined that section 68 is very widely worded and an Income-tax Officer is not precluded from making an enquiry as to the true nature and source thereof even if the same is credited as receipt of share application money. Mere fact that the payment was received by cheque or that the applicants were companies, borne on the file o…

DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Spandana Sphoorthy Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1474/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…rce of the receipt is not satisfactorily established by the assessee. The submission that any further investigation is futile because the money was received on capital account is unacceptable. The Special Bench in the case of CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) opined that section 68 is very widely worded and an Income-tax Officer is not precluded from making an enquiry as to the true nature and source thereof even if the same is credited as receipt of share application money. Mere fact that the payment was received by cheque or that the applicants were companies, borne on the file o…

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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst.CIT M/s Sur Buildcon Central Circle-13, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. 315, 3rd Floor E-Block International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi. PAN-AALCF 7467F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.258/Del/2015 Arising out of ITA No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd. Central Circle-13, 315, 3rd Floor Vs. New Delhi. E-Block Internati…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst.CIT M/s Sur Buildcon Central Circle-13, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. 315, 3rd Floor E-Block International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi. PAN-AALCF 7467F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.258/Del/2015 Arising out of ITA No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd. Central Circle-13, 315, 3rd Floor Vs. New Delhi. E-Block Internati…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Arizona Venutres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1428/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.1428/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 ITO, Ward-3(2), v. M/s. Arizona Ventures Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd., Flat No.211, 2nd Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AADCD6391B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2012-13 ITO, Ward-3(2), v. M/s. Arizona Global Services New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.211, 2nd Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AADCD7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Satpal Gulati…

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

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…

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

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…

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

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…

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

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…

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

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…

Landsky Real Estates P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), New Delhi

ITA 509/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…

ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delight Resorts P.Ltd, Ghaziabad

ITA 6401/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…

ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delight Resorts P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 5974/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…that Case laws relied upon by the past performance should CIT(A) be given suitable weight age for valuation of • Navodaya Castle [56 company and its shares but taxmann.com 18 (SC)] same has been totally • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd ignored in the instant case. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) (Para 4.6.3, Page 5- AO’s • N. R. Portfolio Pvt Ltd [87 order) DTR 162 (Del)]  The assessee has brought • Titan Securities Ltd. 357 nothing on record to justify ITR 184 (del)] its bright future prospect to • Globus Securities and increase profitability and Finance Pvt Ltd [224 ultimately increasing its Taxman 237 (Delhi)] valuation.(Para 4…