CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd.

192 ITR 287High Court1991#690 most cited

What is CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. authority for?

Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. · 192 ITR 287 · Section 68 · share application money addition · unexplained cash credit · identity of shareholders · genuineness of transaction · undisclosed income company · assessee company burden of proof · accommodation entry share capital

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 143(3)Section 68 of the Income Tax ActSection 142(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 10B

Issues it is cited on

addition under section 68share application moneygenuineness of the transactionaccommodation entryunexplained cash creditundisclosed incomesection 131income-tax officersection 68section 133(6)previous yeartransfer

Judgments citing CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd.

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed but in the

ITA/22/2017HC Delhi01 Aug 2017

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

Section 260A

…ial ITA No. 13 of 2017 & connected 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 o…

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed but in the

ITA/21/2017HC Delhi01 Aug 2017

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

Section 260A

…ial ITA No. 13 of 2017 & connected 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 o…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), x. CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268/[2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi)(para 8), xi. Lotus Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 479 (Kol.) of 2011] (para 8), xii. CIT v. Lotus Capital Financial Ser…

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

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/169/2017HC Delhi14 Mar 2017

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

Section 68

…(2008) 307 ITR 334 (DeI.) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- "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, nor…

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)

…The assessee did discharge the initial onus cast upon in this case. Further in the case of CIT vs. First Point Finance Ltd (Supra) the Honble High Court followed the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Steller Investment Ltd. 192 ITR 287 which has now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Steller Investment 251 ITR 263. The ratio laid down in this case was that Sec.68 shall not apply on share application money. "13 We have considered the rival contentions, relevant material on record, as also the cited decisions. In 192 ITR 287 Steller Investment Ltd., H…

Whitemoon Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5470/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Respondent: Dr. Santosh Mankoshar
Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ny and identity of share applicant has also been proved by the assessee and hence, the share application money 7 M/s. Whitemoon Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., could not be added as income in the hands of the assessee company. In CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 287, 288 (Del) it was held that "It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. It may be that there are some bogus shareholders in whose names shares had been issued…

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

…Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.)- Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- "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…

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

…Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.)- Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- "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…

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

…l Investment Ltd vs CIT 268 ITR 211 (Del). Moreover, following decisions lay down that addition of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the company- assessee as was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Limited 192 ITR 287 which was later on affirmed in CIT vs. Steller Investment Limited 251 ITR 263(SC). That being so, there is no question of any addition on this score in the hands of the appellant company and addition so made in defiance of the rulings cited above, the addition of Rs. 27 crores is liable to be deleted on this ground alone and is hereby deleted…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Manoj Prakashan P. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 107/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.107/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Manoj Prakashan P. Ltd., Income Tax, V. Door No.4/7, Srinivasa Avenue Road, Company Circle Iv(1), R.A. Puram, Chennai - 600 028. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aadcm 1285 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ven if the transaction was not genuine, the same cannot be added in the 4 I.T.A. No.107/Mds/14 hands of the assessee as undisclosed income. In fact, the CIT(Appeals) placed his reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. (192 ITR 287). Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition. 5. According to the Ld. Departmental Representative, all the monies were received by the assessee in cash, therefore, the genuineness of transaction is doubtful. Placing reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 407, the Ld.…

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

…lders 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 assessed offers no explanation at all or the explanation offered is not satisfactory then the provision of section 68 may be invoked. 7.6 The legal proposition which comes out of the above decisions is that where the share holder is identified and the share holder confirms the investment in shar…

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

…lders 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 assessed offers no explanation at all or the explanation offered is not satisfactory then the provision of section 68 may be invoked. 7.6 The legal proposition which comes out of the above decisions is that where the share holder is identified and the share holder confirms the investment in shar…

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

…lders 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 assessed offers no explanation at all or the explanation offered is not satisfactory then the provision of section 68 may be invoked. 7.6 The legal proposition which comes out of the above decisions is that where the share holder is identified and the share holder confirms the investment in shar…

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

…reholder, 8 whose identity is produced by the appellant company, the revenue 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 Me…

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

…e treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence of such findings, addition could not be made in the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 23. It is also of relevance to point out that in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi) where the increase in subscribed capital of the respondent-company accepted by the Income-tax Officer and rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that a detailed investigation was required regarding the genuineness of subscribers to share capital, as there was a device of converting black money by issuing shares with the…

M/S. Jaksons Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2467/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. C. Mohanty, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…n matter. Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Sophia Finance & Inv. Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB) and he also relied on another judgment in the case of CIT vs Stellar Investment Ltd. reported in (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del). 9. Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A) and he argued that the order of ld. CIT(A) is correct. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. We find that the department has conducted search and seizure operation on the basis of Investigation Wing of the Department which has info…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/633/2015HC Delhi18 Dec 2015
Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

…ndicated by the assessee. In other words, the truthfulness of the assertion of the assessee regarding the nature and the source of the credit in its books of account can be gone into by the Income-tax Officer. In the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred to and the observations in the said judgment cannot mean that the Income-tax Officer cannot or should not go into the question as to whether the alleged shareholders actually existed or not. If the shareholders are ide…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/612/2015HC Delhi18 Dec 2015
Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

…ndicated by the assessee. In other words, the truthfulness of the assertion of the assessee regarding the nature and the source of the credit in its books of account can be gone into by the Income-tax Officer. In the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred to and the observations in the said judgment cannot mean that the Income-tax Officer cannot or should not go into the question as to whether the alleged shareholders actually existed or not. If the shareholders are ide…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/399/2015HC Delhi18 Dec 2015
Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

…ndicated by the assessee. In other words, the truthfulness of the assertion of the assessee regarding the nature and the source of the credit in its books of account can be gone into by the Income-tax Officer. In the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred to and the observations in the said judgment cannot mean that the Income-tax Officer cannot or should not go into the question as to whether the alleged shareholders actually existed or not. If the shareholders are ide…