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

Issues it is cited on

bogus share capitalcreditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofsource of sourceretracted statementpaper companyshare capital and share premiumshare application moneyaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionsection 132(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd.

Chitwan Developers P. Ltd, Raigad vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4897/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4897/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Chitwan Developers Income Tax Officer 6(2)(1) बनाम/ Private Limited Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. A-9/2, Midc Taloja Mumbai - 400020 Industrial Estate, Taloja Raigarh – 410208 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc7160J

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…h credit on account of assessee even after purchase by bogus shareholders in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (216 CTR 195) (SC) and CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (333 ITR 100) (Bom.)(HC) and CIT Vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263) (SC). It is also argued that the assessee have established the identity of the share applicants and therefore in the said circumstances the said amount is not required to be added towards taxable income of the assessee, in view of the law A.Y.2009-10 settled in CIT Vs. AI Anam Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. (2013) (219 taxman 125) (All.)(HC). It is also…

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

…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. 5.10 The aforesaid addition cannot be sustained for another legal premise al…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE 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) .. AND 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 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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE 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) .. AND 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 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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE 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) .. AND 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 Ward- 7 (4) vs. Sbs Properties & Finvest (P) Ltd

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

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

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

…el/2008 & Sofia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) to hold that the share capital is to be treated as income u/s 68 of the Act if the assessee company fails to prove the source of investment. The Ld. AO has further stated that the case of Stellar Investment 251 ITR 263 (SC) cannot be relied upon because it was a mere dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without assigning any reasons and, therefore, the said summary dismissal did not have any binding precedent. The AO relied upon the judgement in the case of CIT v. Ruby Traders 263 ITR 300 and CIT v. Hindustan Tea Co. 263 ITR 289 to hold that it is for…

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

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

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

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

…el/2008 & Sofia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) to hold that the share capital is to be treated as income u/s 68 of the Act if the assessee company fails to prove the source of investment. The Ld. AO has further stated that the case of Stellar Investment 251 ITR 263 (SC) cannot be relied upon because it was a mere dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without assigning any reasons and, therefore, the said summary dismissal did not have any binding precedent. The AO relied upon the judgement in the case of CIT v. Ruby Traders 263 ITR 300 and CIT v. Hindustan Tea Co. 263 ITR 289 to hold that it is for…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…rities ITA 3813/M/12, 821/M/14, 65 ITA 3812/M/12 & 3821/M/12 below which are detailed in the preceding para’s of this order and are not repeated for sake of brevity. The ld. Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Stellar Investment Limited 251 ITR 263 (SC) , CIT v. Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195(SC) and other decisions as per large number of cases submitted along with paper book filed with the Tribunal. The assessee company has also filed in the paper book , page 51-223 , several documentary evidences which were filed before the authorities below and listed in the preceding para’s…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4077/DEL/2012[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, New Delhi. The CIT (A), relying on the decision of Hon'ble 3 ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] Madras High Court in the case of M/s Skycell Communication Ltd: 251 ITR 253, deleted the interest levied U/S 201(1A) on the ground that the interconnection/port access charges paid by the appellant to MTNL were not in the nature of "fee for technical services" under section 194J read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT (A) before the ITAT, which wa…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4076/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, New Delhi. The CIT (A), relying on the decision of Hon'ble 3 ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] Madras High Court in the case of M/s Skycell Communication Ltd: 251 ITR 253, deleted the interest levied U/S 201(1A) on the ground that the interconnection/port access charges paid by the appellant to MTNL were not in the nature of "fee for technical services" under section 194J read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT (A) before the ITAT, which wa…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3596/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, New Delhi. The CIT (A), relying on the decision of Hon'ble 3 ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] Madras High Court in the case of M/s Skycell Communication Ltd: 251 ITR 253, deleted the interest levied U/S 201(1A) on the ground that the interconnection/port access charges paid by the appellant to MTNL were not in the nature of "fee for technical services" under section 194J read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT (A) before the ITAT, which wa…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3595/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, New Delhi. The CIT (A), relying on the decision of Hon'ble 3 ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] Madras High Court in the case of M/s Skycell Communication Ltd: 251 ITR 253, deleted the interest levied U/S 201(1A) on the ground that the interconnection/port access charges paid by the appellant to MTNL were not in the nature of "fee for technical services" under section 194J read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT (A) before the ITAT, which wa…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3594/DEL/2012[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, New Delhi. The CIT (A), relying on the decision of Hon'ble 3 ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] Madras High Court in the case of M/s Skycell Communication Ltd: 251 ITR 253, deleted the interest levied U/S 201(1A) on the ground that the interconnection/port access charges paid by the appellant to MTNL were not in the nature of "fee for technical services" under section 194J read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT (A) before the ITAT, which wa…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3593/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

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

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…, New Delhi. The CIT (A), relying on the decision of Hon'ble 3 ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] Madras High Court in the case of M/s Skycell Communication Ltd: 251 ITR 253, deleted the interest levied U/S 201(1A) on the ground that the interconnection/port access charges paid by the appellant to MTNL were not in the nature of "fee for technical services" under section 194J read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT (A) before the ITAT, which wa…

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

…that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, under no circumstances the amount of share capital could be regarded as undisclosed income of the company. This view was confirmed by the apex court in CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263. 24. Having taken note of the legal position in detail, we now proceed to decide each appeal on the application of the aforesaid Principles. I T. A. No. 2093 of 2010 and I T. A. No. 2095/2010" 9. It is clear from the decision of the Hon 'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oasis Hospitalities P Ltd (supra) that once the assessee filed copy of PA…

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

…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 Metal & Rolling Mills (P) Ltd…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ime International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1873/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ders were benamidars, fictitious persons or that any part of the share capital money represented the company's own income from undisclosed sources. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC), wherein it has been held that 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. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Sophia Finance Ltd (1994) 205 ITR -0098 - (Del.) has held that: "If the shareholders exist then, possib…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

…rify in view of following cases i.e. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Delhi), CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi), CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del) (HC) and CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). As the documents furnished by appellant are under investigation and verification which was stated in remand report of AO. Under these circumstances, I uphold the order of AO. These grounds of appeal are dismissed”. 8. Against the above order of CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. 9. Ld.AR vehemently argued that by filing variou…

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

…sed share capital were not genuine, under no circumstances the amount of share capital could be regarded as undisclosed income of the 12 M/s. Saimangal Investrade Ltd. company. This view was confirmed by the apex court in CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263. 24. Having taken note of the legal position in detail, we now proceed to decide each appeal on the application of the aforesaid principles. I. T. A. No. 2093 of 2010 and I. T. A. No. 2095 of 2010" 9 It is clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oasis Hospitalities P Ltd (supra) that once the assessee filed copy of…

Yamuna Alloys Ltd., Saharanpur vs. ACIT, Saharanpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3393/DEL/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoyamuna Alloys Ltd., Acit, 44, Mission Compound, Saharanpur Vs. Saharanpur, Pan:Aaacy0479Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 68

…cash credit cannot be made as construction company took time to earn profit and it could not be earned huge profit within a few days after commencing of its business. He has also relied upon the following decisions:- i. CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd . (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) ii. Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, dated 27.11.2015, in ITA No.234/2015, Delhi High Court. 5. The ld AR submitted that even on merits the issue was dealt with by the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1997-98, wherein 429 persons made the investment out of which 118 were picked up for enquiry and 111 confirmed the investment in the s…