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.

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

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

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

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…

ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Essence Commodities P Ltd, Indore

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

ITA 184/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shreya JainFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

…arty. In absence of corroborative evidence disallowances has made by the A.O. is merely on presumption basis. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- (i) Bharti Syntex Limited vs CIT 137 TTJ 82 ( Jaipur Bench) (i) CIT vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd 307 ITR 334 ( Delhi) 1. The commodities in which the appellant traded were highly liquid commodities and mainly belong to top traded commodities in NMCE. 2. NMCE is a nationalised electronic exchange and having membership and clientele all over India. Cross Objection No.17/Ind/2020 Cross Objection Nos.04 & 09/Ind/2021 Essence Commodities Pvt. Ltd., 3. The…

ACIT (Central)-1 Indore, Indore vs. Essence Commodities (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

ITA 675/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shreya JainFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

Aakash Films Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -50, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1762/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…8. View taken in Modi creation Pvt. Ltd. Is also taken in following decision. i. CIT v/s Divine Leasing 85 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). 18 ITA NO. 1762 & 1763/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Aakash Films Private Limited & M/s. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited Your honor can refer the page nos. 1-59 of the Paper Book; the details in length are submitted. Therefore, the findings given by the Ld. AO were in contradiction of section 68 of the Act. By submitting the above d…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…ron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), much water has flown under the bridge and earlier judgements namely Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254), Metachem Industries (245 ITR 160), CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. (394 ITR 383), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (307 ITR 334), Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. (399 ITR 425), ACIT vs. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (87 taxmann.com 216) and CIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (84 taxmann.com 58) will have no application in the present case where the partner company is a shell company, shown meager income for the year under reference, returned income is low vis-a-…

Rivet Electrical Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rom the concerned banks, the addition could not be made on the ground that the directors or representatives of the applicant companies were not produced." Judgment: of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) in which it was held as under : 'CIT(A) having accepted the existence of the share applicants and the Revenue having not shown that the applicants did not have the means to make the investment and that such investment actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company, addition was rightly deleted by the Tribunal; no substantial qu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

…ties (P) Ltd, (ii) UP Bone Mills India Ltd, (xlii) (iii) Vijay Powers Generators Ltd CIT V. Dolphin Canpack Ltd (2006) 283 ITR 190 (Delhi) (xliii) CIT and Another V. ASK Brothers Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 111 (Kar) (xliv) CIT V. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) (xlv) 5.17 The Ld. A.R. finally submitted that in this case the assessee company has proved the identity of the investor with confirmation letters from the investor. Further the genuineness of the transaction is established as assessee company has furnished that all transactions are though banking channel, FIRC's and communication with R…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Gadumaria, Raigarh

In the result appeal ITA No

ITA 94/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal & Shri N.C.Gupta, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 131(1)Section 68

…n Auto P. Ltd. 227 Taxman 147 (Delhi)(Mag) 7. CIT v. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) 8. DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 9. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) 10. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. 11. CIT vs Value Capital Services Pvt Ltd., 307 ITR 334 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material evidence available on record. 14 & CO No.09/RPR/2018 10. On perusal of the report of the ITO, Ward 6(3), New Delhi shown to us at page 1 of the paperbook of the assessee regarding impugned investment by M/s Consolidated Finlease Ltd. in the assessee company. This report has confirmed th…

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ties below have also did not produce any material on record that such investments made in the assessee company was made from coffers of the assessee. We rely upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Value Capital Services P. Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 334 (Delhi High Court) in which it was held that "dismissing the appeal, that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if the share applicants did not have the means to make the 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…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…that the aforesaid sum were originated directly or indirectly from the coffers of the assessee company. In support of the same the appellant relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of GIT vs Value capital Services (P) Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 334 and CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd reported in 306 ITR 35. 7.8 That in the assessment proceeding for AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 & 2016-17 the Assessing Officer commissioned the verification at old addresses in Kolkata by issuing a commission u/s 131(1)(d) to the Kolkata Investigation Wing on 27.02.2018. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-2, Kolkata submitted it…

M/S Combined Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 548/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 548/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Combined Merchants Private Limited…………….Appellant [PAN: AAECC 0503 F] Vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata......................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, CA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Biswanath Das, Sr. D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 20th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : August 4th, 2022 ORDER Per Manis…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…erial to hold that creditworthiness of these persons are not established. The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export 216 CTR 195 and also the judgement 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 judgements w…

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2009-10 M/s. Davalagiri Property Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Developers Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Prerana Chambers, Circle 2[1][2], No.26, 2nd Floor, Bangalore. Nehru Nagar Main Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 048. PAN: AACCD 3575A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2022 O R D E R Per…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…sessee company. In absence of such allegation, no addition can be made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs., Value Capital Services Ltd., 307 ITR 334 (Del.) CIT vs., Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd., 306 ITR 55 2. (Del.) CIT vs., Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220 3. (Del.) CIT vs., Five Vision Promoters (P) Ltd., 380 ITR 289 4. (Del.). 7.2. He submitted that out of the 54 shareholders, response duly accepted as received in the case of 46 shareholders and only in respect of one shareho…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…orrectness of such additions. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (SC) • A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Madras) • Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC), • CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd 307 ITR 334 (Del.), • CIT vs Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del.) , • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) 6.4 It was also submitted that the amount deposited in the bank account was out of sale of jewellery which had been held by the assessee as stock in trade and since the deposits in the bank account were out of sale of stock…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2465/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Rishipal Investments & Ito, Finance (P) Ltd. Ward-15(4), 25/31, Ambros House, Vs New Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Pan-Aabcr5971K Assessee Revenue

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…46 (Del.); CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.); CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.); CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd., 330 ITR 603 (Del.); CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kureli Papers Mills P. Ltd., 380 ITR 571 (Del.). 6.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that there is no adverse material available on record against the assessee so as to make the impugned addition of Rs.10 lakhs and that no investigation have been made by the A.O. on the documentary evi…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d. (2013) 30 taxmann.com 328 (Delhi)  CIT v/s. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd. – Tax Appeal No. 71of 2015 (Del.) (HC)  CIT v/s Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. [333 ITR 119] [Del]  CIT v/s KC Fibres Ltd. [332 ITR 461] [Del]  CIT v/s Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. [307 ITR 334] [Del]  CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi)  CIT v/s. Dolphin Canpack Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 190 (Delhi)  CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2006) 74 CCH 0936 (HC.) (Delhi)  Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Fair Finvest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Delhi)  Pr. CIT v/s Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 778/2015] (De…