CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. D.K.G Company, New Delhi

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

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

…sclosed income of the assessee and as such there 18 ITA No. 4711/Del./2012 could be no ground for any adverse inference. The legal position to this effect is supported from decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.) I have carefully considered the finding of the Assessing Officer and submission of the appellant. There is no dispute that these advances were received through account payee cheque and all the parties are regular income tax assessee and permanent account numbers .of these parties have been furnished to the Assessing Officer during the cour…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

…T vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors, (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Del)., CIT vs. Gourdin Herbals India Ltd., ITA No.665 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009 (Del.), CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., (2010) 329 ITR 271 (Del), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del), Madhuri Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and Ors., ITA No.110 of 2004 dated 18 - 01-2006, CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.212 of 2012 dated 11-04-2012 (Del), CIT vs. Expo Globe India Ltd., ITA No.1257 of 2011 dated 20 - 07-2012 (Del) and CIT vs. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del). 2013:DHC:6128 =======…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

…T vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors, (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Del)., CIT vs. Gourdin Herbals India Ltd., ITA No.665 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009 (Del.), CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., (2010) 329 ITR 271 (Del), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del), Madhuri Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and Ors., ITA No.110 of 2004 dated 18 - 01-2006, CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.212 of 2012 dated 11-04-2012 (Del), CIT vs. Expo Globe India Ltd., ITA No.1257 of 2011 dated 20 - 07-2012 (Del) and CIT vs. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del). 2013:DHC:6128 =======…

CIT vs. Expo Globe India Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…to hold that credit worthiness of these persons are not established. The judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export 216 CTR 195 and also the judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 are relevant on this issue. It was held by Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. 294 ITR 661 and Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jaya Securities Ltd. 166 Taxman 7 that no addition can be made on account of share application money even if subscriber to capital are not genuine. The above said jud…

CIT vs. Independent Media Pvt Ltd

In the result the substantial question of law is answered in the negative, in

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ For Short). It Is Directed Against The Order Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟ For Short) Dated 11.03.2010 Passed In Ita No.470/Del/2009. 2. The Following Substantial Question Of Law Is Framed: - “Whether The Tribunal Is Right In Law In Remitting The Issue Relating To The Addition Of `2,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Share Application Money To The Assessing Officer With Directions To Verify The Source Of Money Of The Shareholders & Make Additions In The Hands Of Persons Who Provided The Monies?”

…hare capital. According to the Tribunal no such inquiry had been done by the Assessing Officer nor any corroborative material had been brought on record. Reference was made to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 wherein it was held that if the Revenue accepts the existence of the share applicants and is not able to show that they did not have the means to make the investment, there is an additional burden upon it to show that the investment actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company. According to the Tribunal since there was nothing…

CIT vs. Independent Media Pvt Ltd

In the result the substantial question of law is answered in the negative, in

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ For Short). It Is Directed Against The Order Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟ For Short) Dated 11.03.2010 Passed In Ita No.470/Del/2009. 2. The Following Substantial Question Of Law Is Framed: - “Whether The Tribunal Is Right In Law In Remitting The Issue Relating To The Addition Of `2,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Share Application Money To The Assessing Officer With Directions To Verify The Source Of Money Of The Shareholders & Make Additions In The Hands Of Persons Who Provided The Monies?”

…hare capital. According to the Tribunal no such inquiry had been done by the Assessing Officer nor any corroborative material had been brought on record. Reference was made to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 wherein it was held that if the Revenue accepts the existence of the share applicants and is not able to show that they did not have the means to make the investment, there is an additional burden upon it to show that the investment actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company. According to the Tribunal since there was nothing…

Gupta Citi Shelters Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…oks being treated as a receipt of income nature. ITA Nc.972 of 2009 Page 14 of 58 22. We would like to refer to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)]. The Court in that case held that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if share application did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence of…

Gupta Citi Shelters Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

…as a receipt of income nature. ITA Nc.972 of 2009 Page 14 of 58 2011:DHC:12065-DB 22. We would like to refer to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)]. The Court in that case held that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if share application did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence of…

Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed

…is case, Mr. Krishnan submits, no such material has been placed on record nor is there any finding to that effect. 6.5 In support of the aforesaid submissions Mr Krishnan relied upon the following judgments. CIT vs Value Capital Services P. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & Anr. (2003) 264 ITR 254. 7. As against this, Mr. Sabharwal before us submits that the details supplied by the assessee would show that the source of funds of the creditors was by way of commissions and gifts. Mr. Sabharwal further submits that in this case the assessee impeded the inquiry of the AO…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Up Bone Mills India Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…stify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. 22. We would like to refer to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)]. The Court in that case held that the additional burden was on the f] Department to show that even if share application did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd

…y the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. 22. We would like to refer to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)]. The Court in that case held that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if share application did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence o…

CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd

…y the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. 22. We would like to refer to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)]. The Court in that case held that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if share application did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence o…

CIT vs. Green Tech Tower Builders Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed in limine but with no order as

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

…pany. In the light of the facts of the present case and in the light of the various decisions referred to by the ld. CIT (A) in his order including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi), we hold that the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted ITA 1113/2010 Page 3 of 3 the addition. We, therefore, uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A).” 4. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by CIT(A) and I…

CIT vs. Green Tech Tower Builders Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed in limine but with no order as

…pany. In the light of the facts of the present case and in the light of the various decisions referred to by the ld. CIT (A) in his order including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi), we hold that the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted 2010:DHC:3980-DB the addition. We, therefore, uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A).” 4. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by CIT(A) and ITAT is in consonance with the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

…required to prove the source of source and the onus cast on the assessee stands discharged where the assessee s able to establish the aforesaid three ingredients. He referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services: 307 ITR 334 @ 336 wherein it is held: 2009:DHC:5679-DB “…..the additional burden on the Revenue. It must show that even if the applicant does not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by the applicant actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee…

Commissioner of Income T Ax Delhi II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

…required to prove the source of source and the onus cast on the assessee stands discharged where the assessee s able to establish the aforesaid three ingredients. He referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services: 307 ITR 334 @ 336 wherein it is held: 2009:DHC:5679-DB “…..the additional burden on the Revenue. It must show that even if the applicant does not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by the applicant actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee…