How many judgments cite CIT v. Tania Investment?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Tania Investment (322 ITR 394), spanning 2016 to 2024.

CIT v. Tania Investment

322 ITR 394High Court2010#4039 most cited

What is CIT v. Tania Investment authority for?

When the identity of parties providing cash credits is established, and their books of account demonstrate the capacity to advance loans, further proof of creditworthiness is not required for the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v Tania Investments · cash credits · section 68 · identity of party · capacity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · books of account · creditworthiness

Issues it is cited on

section 106 section 23(4)section 23(1)annual letting value section 24(a)source of source annual value creditworthiness of the creditor deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)addition u/s 68 share application money

Judgments citing CIT v. Tania Investment

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

ITA 81/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 269TSection 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 81/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, ……………. Appellant Ward -1, Amravati v/s Shri Sanjay Nanasaheb Bharsakale 1, Shivaji Nagar, Banosa, ……………. Respondent Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. PAN – AHRPB8625J Assessee by : Shri Manoj Moriyani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr. Date of Hearing – 09/07/2024 Date of Order – 16/07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the department challenging the impugned…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAIGARH vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR JAIN, JASHPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 96/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito-2, Raigargh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, College Road, Dist : Jashpur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /10 /2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bilaspur, Dated 06.03.2018, On The Following Ground :- 1. Whether In The Facts & Circumstance & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On The Points Of The Law Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao By Ignoring The Facts As Brought On Record By The Ao That The Assessee Failed To Prove The Identity Of The Creditor, Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Of The Investor As Per The Parameters Of The Legal Provisions U/S 68 Of The Act? 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Decisions In The Following Lead Cases:- (I) Mcdowell & Company Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 22 Taxman 11 (Sc). (Ii) M/S Raj Mandir Estates Pvt Ltd Vs Pcit-Iii, Kolkata (Slp No. 22566-22567) Dated 09.01.2017. (Iii) Cit Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd., 208 Itr 465(Cal).

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e lender company has no real business activities, thus should be a shell company, thereby the transaction done with such company was a bogus transaction. In this regard legal principle set by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tania Investment (P.) Ltd. 322 ITR 394 (Bombay) (2010) is relevant, wherein it is held that:- Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Where in books of account produced by creditors corresponding 10 entries of alleged cash credits were found, books of account itself would indicate capacity of party to advance loan, there was no further need on part of assessee to prov…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 4285/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan…

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

NARESH T. WADHWANI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(4),, PUNE

ITA 792/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.792/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Naresh T Wadhwani, The Income Tax Officer, Office No.9, Umed Bhavan, Vs Ward-8(4), Pune. Canara Bank, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabpw 7203 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V.L.Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune’S Order Dated 27.03.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/Ito Wd.8(4)/10658/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…heir bank accounts and are regular tax assessees, the inference of sham entities does not hold water. l) The appellant is not required to prove source of the cash credits. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. CIT V Tania Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) 322 ITR 394 m) Where lenders are tax assessees and had provided confirmations of cash credit, addition is not justified. Reliance is placed on the following decisions for the above proposition. CIT v Sahibganj Elec Cables (P)Ltd 115 ITR 408 (Cal) Kamal Engg Works v ITo 52 TTJ 75 (Delhi) CIT v Ramneet Singhf 306 ITR 267 (P&H) n) Inability to produce lenders…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S LUXORA REALTORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Kishore DewaniFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…dition made by the Ld. AO cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny. I am also fortified 20 M/s. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., in my above view by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Conn in the case of Commissioner of income-tax V. Tania Investments (P.) Ltd 322 ITR 394 (Born) and the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of income-tax Officer 9(1)-1 v. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 153 (Mum.) 2.4.10 It is also seen that the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of IT AT was seized of the issue of cash credit from a foreign country in the case of AC IT vs Ms Linfox Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 8641/M/2012 w…

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

…axmann.com 283 (Calcutta) The above case is related to section 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 in which the ld. AO have not done proper enquiries. As such the above case has not application to the instant case. In the case of CIT vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 394 (Bom.), it has been held that tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the AO towards unexplained cash credits as the Books of Accounts itself indicate the capacity to advance loan, the parties are identified and there is no further need to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. In the case of Raichand Kothari (HUF) vs. CIT (1997…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5, NEW DELHI vs. HARVANSH P CHAWLA, NEW DELHI

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…In the light of these evidences the Hon'ble Guahati High Court held that the addition u/s 68 was not justified. Consequently, the deletion of said addition was upheld. (v) That Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Tania Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 394 (Bom) observed that the cash credits to the extent ofRs.7,41,17,495/- was entered irt books of account the assessee. The assessee was required to establish, (i) the identity of the party, (ii) capacity arid (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. So far as identity is concerned the parties have been identified and similarly in the books of acco…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5, NEW DELHI vs. HARVANSH P CHAWLA, NEW DELHI

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

SHRI MADANLAL GABBAJI BANJARA,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

In the result both the appeals for Assessment Years vide

ITA 776/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…itions made deserves to be deleted. In this connection we would like to draw your honour's kind attention to the following cases. 1. CIT V/s. Metachem - 245 ITR p.160 (M.P.) 11. CIT V/s. Pithampur Coetza - 244 ITR p.442 (M.P.) 111. CIT v/s Tanya Industries 322 ITR 394 (Born) IV. CIT v/s Jai Kumar Bakliwal366 ITR 217 (Raj) & P 232 v. CIT v/s Dharam Dev Finance 43 Taxmann.com 395 (Guj.) VI. CIT v/s Varinder Rawlley 366 ITR 232 (P&H) V11. CIT v/s Deendayal Choudhary 293 CTR P. 468 (Raj.) Vlll. CIT v/s Haresh D Mehta 86 Taxman.com P. 22 In view of the above it is humbly prayed that the additions made by the Ld.…

SHRI MADANLAL GABBAJI BANJARA,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

In the result both the appeals for Assessment Years vide

ITA 775/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. LUXTRA REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6202/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Ito-15(2)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Room No.802, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Old Cgo Building Off. Eastern Express Highway M.K.Road, Near Checknaka Mumbai – 400 020 Mulund (E), Mumbai- 400081 Pan/Gir No.Aabco3197J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 68

…source of source and hence, the addition made by the Ld. AO cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny. I am also fortified in my above view by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v, Tania Investments (P.) Ltd 322 ITR 394 (Bom) and the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Income-tax Officer 9(1)-1 v. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd [2012J 20 taxmann.com 153 (Mum.) 2.4.10. It is also seen that the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT was seized of the issue of cash credit from a foreign country in the case of ACIT vs M/s Linfox Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.864/M/2012 w…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…source of source and hence, the addition made by the Ld. AO cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny. I am also fortified in my above view by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tania Investments (P.) Ltd 322 ITR 394 (Born) and the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Income-tax Officer 9(1)-1 V. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 153(Mum.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2.4.33 It is seen that vide Para 2(b) of the Grounds of Appeal, the appellant has raised a without prejudice ground stating that in any case, the total investment made…

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

…19. CIT vs. Samir Bio-tech Pvt Ltd 325ITR294(Del-HC) 20. CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397ITR136(Bom-HC) 21. CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333ITR100(Bom-HC) 22. Orient Trading Co. Ltd vs. CIT 49 ITR 723 (Bom-HC) 23. CIT vs. Tania Investment Pvt Ltd 322 ITR 394 (Bom-HC) 24. CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330ITR298(Del-HC) 11. We have heard the counsels and perused the records. We find that the assessee in this case has received share capital and share premium from its associate concern M/s. Illusion Securities P. Ltd. The Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the share premium received is…

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BHUBRIGHAT TEA CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 663/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…T vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Sahibganaja Electric Cables (P) Ltd. reported in 115 ITR 408 (Cal) iii) CIT vs. Shree Gopal & Co. reported in 204 ITR 285 (Guj) iv) CIT vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 394 (Bom) v) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 354 ITR 282 (Del) vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) vii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT reported in 264 ITR page 254 (Gauhati). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed earlier as well as the judicial pronouncements cited, I am of the view that addition s…

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 277/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

…nt case having distinct facts and circumstances. Therefore, the first appellate order may kindly be upheld and sustained by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. The Ld. AR further relied on following decision viz: CIT v. Tania Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 322 ITR 394 (Bombay), CIT v. Varinder Rawley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H), CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del), ACIT v. Pravin Mittal [2016] 28 ITJ 473 (Trib-Indore), CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP):161 CTR DCIT v 1(1) v Modern Laboratories / I. T. A. No. 277/Ind/2014& CO.No.16/Ind/2014/AY:08-09 Page 21 of 29 444 (…

ITO 2(1)1, MUMBAI vs. AARAM REAL ESTATE P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 68

…details including, inter alia, confirmations, PAN, income tax return details, balance sheets, capital accounts, bank accounts have been furnished during assessment proceedings or remand proceedings before the LAO. In CIT vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 394 (Born), Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the AO towards unexplained, cash credits as the books of accounts itself indicate the capacity to advance loan, the parties are identified and there is no further need to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs. P.S. Jain Co. Ltd. (2…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. INDERPAL SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 952/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

…ons laid down in Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 21.4 The appellant further relied on the following case laws: - (a) Anil Rice Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 282 ITR 236 (All) , (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 394 (Bom) (c) Commissioner of income Tax *'s. Micro Melt (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 70 (Guj.) (d) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau). 21.5 In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, legal provision and case laws cited and discussed in this order, I hold that addition of unsecured loans on ad hoc b…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VARDAN FASHION, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 950/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivardan Fashions, Jcit, E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Range-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vardan Fashions, Circle-33(1) E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR

Section 142Section 40

…nditions laid down in Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 21.6 The appellant further relied on the following case laws: (a) Anil Rice Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 282 ITR 236 (All) (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 394 (Bom) (c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Micro Melt (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 70 (Guj.) (d) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau). 21.7 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, legal provisions and the case laws cited and discussed in this order. I find that the additio…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2