How many judgments cite CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd.?

233 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 131, Section 139(1).

CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd.

251 ITR 263Supreme Court of India2001#379 most cited

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

An increase in a company's subscribed share capital cannot be treated as the company's undisclosed income under section 68, even if the subscribers to the capital are found not to be genuine. The amount of share capital cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the company itself.

233

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. · Section 68 Income Tax Act · bogus share capital · share application money · creditworthiness of subscriber · genuineness of transaction · onus of proof · undisclosed income of company · paper company · conversion of black money

Also reported as

115 Taxmann 99

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 131 Section 139(1)Section 153A Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

bogus share capital creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof source of source retracted statement paper company share capital and share premium share application money addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction section 132(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd.

Choice Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri Ran Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 132(4)Section 139(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

….)  CIT vs. Supertech Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 229 Taxman 62 (Rajasthan High Court)  Shri Barakha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 155 Taxman 239 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Diving Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (SC)  CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC)  CIT vs. Lovely Export (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 It is submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has quoted certain decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in support of his order. It is submitted that the Judicial Disciple requires that the Learned CIT(A) should have followed the decisions of the Territorial High Court of Rajasthan and of…

Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sankalp Corporate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1) M/S. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

Section 68

…d by Supreme Court] 10. Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd ITA No. 169/20 17 dated 14/03/20 17 (Del-HC) 11. CIT vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd 88 CCH 65 (All-HC) 12. CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd 216 ITR 195 (SC) 13. CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd 251 ITR 263 (SC) 14. CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITA 1613 of 2014 (Bom-HC) 15. CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom-HC) 16. Mod Creations Pvt Ltd vs. ITO 354ITR282(Del-HC) 17. CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd 299ITR268(Del-HC) 18. CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330ITR298(Del-HC) 19. CIT vs. Samir Bio-tech Pvt Ltd 325I…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Spartacus Farmsp.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3073/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3073/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The I.T.O-8(3)(2), M/S. Spartacus Farms Pvt. Ltd. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, 11-A, Gr. Floor, बनाम/ M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6632 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Ms. Trupti Y. Katale सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar &

Section 68

…ddress of the person including her PAN from whom the said credits have been received. That the assessee also relied on various judicial pronouncements namely CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (SC) (216 CTR 195), CIT vs. M/s. Stellar Investments Company Ltd. (251 ITR 263) (SC), CIT v/s P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) and also various other rulings of various High Courts and the Apex Court and stated that an analysis of the various judgement goes to show that assessee's burden is restricted to establish the existence of the share holders and not the capacity/ability. 5. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…. Therefore, no addition could have been made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) " CIT Vs Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " CIT Vs Achal Investments Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211 (Del.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 " Sarthak Securities Co. (P) ltd. Vs ITO 329 ITR…

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

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

ITA 2491/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…t received by the assessee Co. would be regarded as a capital receipt and no additions can be made u/s 68 of the Act. Similar view has been expressed in various other judgments of Hon‟ble courts, few of them is cited hereunder: CIT v.s Steller Investment Ltd (251 ITR 263) (SC) Achal Investment Ltd vs CIT (268 ITR 211) (Del) DCIT.vs Esteem Towers (P) Ltd. (99 TTJ 472) (Del) CIT vs Dolphin Canpack Ltd (204 CTR 50) (Del) CIT vs Giocom Impex (P) Ltd. (205 CTR 571) (Del) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298)(Del) CIT vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013)…

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

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

ITA 2485/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elegant Security Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6173/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.6173/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2008-2009 M/s. Elegant Security Services The ACIT, Central Circle-13, vs. Pvt. Ltd., 315, 3rd Floor, E- Room No.332, ARA Centre, Block, International Trade Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN AABCE3756D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R. For Assessee : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Date of Hearing : 16.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAIN…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…int 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., Honble Delhi High Court has laid down as under: 23 Shri Radhey Ram Godara vs ITO, Ward- 3(5), Jaipur "It is…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company ii) CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (200) 251 ITR 263 (SC) Even if the subscribers to the increased share capital of assessee-company were not genuine, the amount could not be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee-company. iii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhaval Synthetics (Raj HC) (2013) 84 DTR 0449 (Raj) Held that even in case of doubt about subscribers to increased share capital, amou…

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2706/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atc Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit-9 (Earlier Known As Essar Telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaeca9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…ther taking support from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 and CIT Vs, P a g e | 26 ITA No. 2706/Mum/2015 AY: 2008-09 ATC Telecom Tower Vs. Pr. CIT Stellar Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC), therein averred that as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that where the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders who had been identified, the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but the amount of the share application money cannot be re…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Luminant Investment Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2067/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 68

…he assessed aggregate amount of ` 13.92 crores as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) considered the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 and also decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2007) 158 Taxman 440 (Del). The learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has furnished all the details to prove the three main ingredients namely identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. 7. The learned CIT(A) accepted the con…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Khushboo Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3647/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 3647/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2007-08) ITO 4(2)(4) M/s. Khshboo Exports Pvt. Room No. 647 Vs. Ltd. 6th Floor Room No. 30 Aayakar Bhavan 3rd Floor, Badamwadi M.K. Road 343-A, Kalbadevi Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 002. PAN : AACCK0444P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sailesh Parmar Department by Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing 21.9.2017 Date of Pronouncement 21.9.2017 O R D E R The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.2.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A)-9, Mumbai and i…

D.C.I.T, Cir-8, Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Krishna Fodder Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1968/KOL/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 1999-2000

For Appellant: None (AR)For Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT. Sr. DR

Section 254

…2%. The assessee also furnished ledger copies of sundry creditors, advances and increased share capital for the year. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Stellar Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263) to contend that even if the subscribed share capital were not genuine, the amount could not be regarded as its undisclosed income. 4. All the submissions made by the assessee were forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO seeking the later’s comments. The Assessing Officer, however, did not offer his comments within a period of about one month and t…

Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Krishna Sheet Processors P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4003/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 68

…e burden discharged by the assessee. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case law and submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. (a) CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008)(216 CTR (SC) 195) (b) CIT Vs. Steller Investment Ltd (251 ITR 263)(SC) (c) CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd (2012)(248 CTR (Del) 33) (d) CIT Vs. STL Extrusion P Ltd (2011)(333 ITR 269)(MP) (e) CIT Vs. Arunananda Textiles P Ltd (2011)(333 ITR 116)(Kar) (f) CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd (2011)(330 ITR 298)(Delhi) (g) ITO Vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd (ITA No.2821/Del/2009 dt 1.4.15) 7. We have heard rival…

ACIT, Alwar vs. M/S Prime Chem Oil Ltd., Alwar

ITA 9/JPR/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 1999-00

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prithaviraj Meena(Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…case of other share holder namely Genesh Benzo Plast, Thapar Ispat, Zindal Oil Swift Fin Vest, Shambhuka Agro including Moon Holding and Subh in Cap but confirmation of above companied obtained by the AO. The appellant relied upon CIT Steeller investment Ltd. 251 ITR 263 (2000) SC and CIT Vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 ( SC) and argued that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holder, whose names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law, but it cannot regarded as undisclo…

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)

…int 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., Honble Delhi High Court has laid down as under: "It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscriber…

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

…e but we fail to understand as to how this amount of increased share capital can be assessed in the hands of the company itself. “The appeal filed by the Revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) wherein the appeal filed against the ruling of the High Court was dismissed by refusing to refer the question of law.” 18. In view of the above discussion we do not find any merit in the action of AO making addition of Rs. 15,00,000. 19. In the result appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10/02/2017 sd/-…

Om Machineries Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax V

ITA/176/2016HC Delhi08 Nov 2016

Section 132Section 68

…Hon‟ble High Court. The Hon‟ble High Court in its decision in the said case (299 ITR 268) having analyzed the decisions of the various High Courts as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Stellar Investment Ltd., (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC), distilled the precedents in para 16 of the judgments and has clearly enunciated that all the three ingredients of the section 68, (identity and credit worthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions) have to be proved. The following observations made by the Hon‟ble High Court in para 21 of the judgment, are note-worth…

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

…r decision dated 23/12/2011, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.(supra), has considered various judicial pronouncements including CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 and CIT vs Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) and held as under:- “The issue relating to the additions made by the AO under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on account of unexplained share application money is becoming mercurial and mercurial by the day. Though plethora of case law is available deciding various facets of this issue and the principles whic…

M/S. U.S. Food (P) Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

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

ITA 3266/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…was submitted that the decision relied by ld. CIT(A) in Nova Promoters (supra) is not applicable in the instant case in view of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., 216 CTR 195 and Steller Investment Limited 251 ITR 263. Further reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i). Jaya Securities Ltd. vs. CIT, 166 Taxman 7 (All.) (ii). CIT vs. Al Anam Agro Foods (P) Ltd., 219 Taxman 125 (All) (iii). CIT vs. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd. 217 Taxman 16(All) (iv). CIT vs. Miq Steels (P) Ltd., 217 Taxman 209 (All). 4. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the ord…