How many judgments cite CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd.?

216 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. (307 ITR 334), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 68, Section 132(4), Section 147, Section 131.

CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd.

307 ITR 334High Court2008#416 most cited

What is CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or share application money is not sustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper investigation into the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

216

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. · 307 ITR 334 · Section 68 · Section 143(3) · cash credits · share application money · onus of proof · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · AO investigation failure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 68 Section 132(4)Section 147 Section 131 Section 37(1)Section 69A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

onus of proof retraction of statement retracted statement creditworthiness of the creditor principal officer share capital and share premium source of source statement under section 132(4)share application money addition under section 68 genuineness of the transaction accommodation entry

Judgments citing CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd.

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 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.247/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikas Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated…

Heritage Hospitals Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 4090/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Leasing & Finance Ltd 299 ITR 268(Del) (h) CIT Vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd 356 ITR 65(MP). i) Dwarkadish Investment Pvt Ltd (Del)ITA No. 911 of 2010 (j) CIT Vs. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 603(Del). (k) CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Pvt Ltd 307 ITR 334(Del). 11. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee company introduced its own fund in the form of share application money in the names of six companies. These six companies have no capacity to deposit such huge amount as share application money. It is argued that it reflect…

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT

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

…charge of onus vii. Other cases where the issue of share application money received by an assessee was examined in the context of Section 68 are Lovely Exposes (P) Ltd. Divine Leasing & Financing Ltd. (supra), and CIT v. Value Capital Service (P.) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) 8.10 The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are: i. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genumeness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, to the sati…

Vashisth Builders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6934/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Vashisth Builders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-26(1), A-52, 2Nd Floor, Fiee Complex, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcv3687L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shir Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-10), New Delhi Dated 13.08.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us By Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 26(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, By Making An Addition Of Rs. 7,23,72,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts & 2 Circumstances Of The Case, The Law As Applicable & The Submissions & The Supporting Evidence Produced By The Appellant. Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Disallowance / Addition Of Rs. 3,72,000/- Made By The Dcit As Notional Interest On Interest Free Loans Granted By The Appellant Out Of The Interest Expense Claimed By The Appellant Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Law As Applicable & The Submissions & The Supporting Evidence Produced By The Appellant. Iii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 7,20,000/- Made By The Dcit By Treating The Share Capital Received By The Appellant During The Year As Unexplained Cash- Credit, Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Law As Applicable & The Submissions & The Supporting Evidence Produced By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR0010 (Delhi)  CIT vs Fair Finvest Ltd., (2013) 357 ITR 146, (High court of Delhi)  CIT vs Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 119, (High Court of Delhi)  CIT vs Value capital services (P) Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (High Court of Delhi)  CIT vs Winstral Petrochemicals (P) Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 0603 (High Court of Delhi)  CIT vs Expo Globe India Ltd., (2014) 361 ITR 0147 (High Court of Delhi) Adverse observation of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are met as under: Adverse observation of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are met as under:- 1. Ld. AO in para 2 at page 2 of the ass…

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…/s 68 of the Act, the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove otherwise. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements for this proposition: a. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 334, wherein it was held that the amounts received towards share application money cannot be assessed in the hands of the company unless the Department is able to show that the amount received towards the share capital actually emanated from the coffers of the company. b. Pr. CIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bombay…

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

…through banking channels as evidenced by bank statements and other documents relating to subscriber placed on record, no addition under section 68 of the Act could have been made.  The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd.: 307 ITR 334 has, while reiterating the dictum laid in successive decisions, held that there was additional burden cast on the Revenue to prove that the investment made by the assessee actually emanated from 24 the coffers of the assessee so as to enable the same to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee.  Further reliance is made on the decision o…

ITO-13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…scharge of onus. vii. Other cases where the issue of share application money received by an assessee was examined in the context of Section 68 are CIT v. Divine Leasing & Financing Ltd., (2007) 158 Taxman 440, and CIT v. Value Capital Service (P.) Ltd., [2008]307 ITR 334. 11. The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are : i. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, to the satisfacti…

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1998/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…ppellant has the genesis of the unauthorized diversion of funds by M/s CDS- NKC(JV), still addition u/s 68 is uncalled for. Support is derived from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 334(Delhi). The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder: "In any case, what is clinching is 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 und…

DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2739/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2488/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Vs ACIT, 72, Mudali Thottam, Central Circle-31, Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, New Delhi Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N ITA No. 2739/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 DCIT, Vs Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-19, 72, Mudali Thottam, New Delhi Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N CO No. 140/Del/2023 : Ass…

Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu vs. ACIT, Centyral Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2488/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…n 8. View taken in Modi creation Pvt. Ltd. Is also taken in following decision. i. CIT v/s Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 158 Taxmann 440 (Delhi) (2007). ii. Nemichand Kothari V/s CIT (136 Taxman 216) (Gau.) (2004). iii. CIT V/s Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi)(2008). Thus, the addition made on the basis of bad-assessment order is also bad-in-law and requires to be deleted. C. CASE LAWS RELIED BY LD. AO DISTINGUISHED 1. The Ld. AO in the assessment order has laid reliance on following case laws as under and the same has been distinguished: - SN Various case laws relied by Case of Assessee Ld. AO…

Sandeep Maloo, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsandeep Maloo Vs. Dcit-Cc-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afcpm7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…P a g e | 1 Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT-CC-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AFCPM7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Jayant Bhatt Respondent by : Kishore Dhule Date of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed aga…

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

…f Lovely Exports was followed by another Division Bench in Lovely Exports was followed by another Division Bench in Lovely Exports was followed by another Division Bench in CIT v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. CIT v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi). In CIT v. Oasis Hosp (Delhi). In CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR italities (P.) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 119/ 198 Taxman 247/9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi), a 119/ 198 Taxman 247/9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi), a 119/ 198 Taxman 247/9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed that…

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4595/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh K. Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

…, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but this amount of share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the assessee company." 2. CIT vs. Value Capital Services P Ltd. 221 CTR 511 (Del HC) Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd. "If department wants to make addition on account of share application money, burden is on department to show that even if applicant did not have means to make investment, investment made by assessee actually emanated from coffers of assessee so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of assessee.…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi/ D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

ITA 660/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…om) 12. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr CIT Vs Apeak Infotech & Others reported in [2017] 397 ITR 148 (Bom) 13. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. reported inJ2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) Page 16 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 641, 650 & 660/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. 14. Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2013] 353 ITR 171 (Cal) 15. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs C…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

ITA 650/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

ITA 641/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…1& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns (ix). CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (x). CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147