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 Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…cmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd (2014-TIOL-297-HC-ALL- IT),CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC),CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del),CIT vs Creative World Telefilm Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom), CIT vs Value Capital services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del), Netscape Software Ltd. in ITA no 3852/Mum/2009 dated 19.10.2011,CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349, (SC). 22. The Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the addition on the basis of being unabated assessment year by following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) and Murali A…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…material to hold that creditworthiness 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 judgements w…

DCIT 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Indore

ITA 384/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 Dcit-5(1) M/S. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaocs7650K Appellant By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…hya Pradesh) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT- 1 v. Ami Industries (India)(P.) Ltd. as reported in [2020] 116 taxmann.com 34 (Bombay) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2008] 307 ITR 334 (Delhi); The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT, Central Circle, Salem v. Victory Spinning Mills Ltd. as reported in [2014] 50 taxmann.com 416 (Madras); The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. First Point Finance Ltd. as reported in [2006] 286 ITR 477 (Rajasthan); The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Dee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 284/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA

Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 & 284/DEL/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-31, 30, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCJ2199J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 23 06 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been fi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA

Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…17 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (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…

M/S Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 2106/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the genuineness of the transactions had been duly established by the assessee.” 10.10. Decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Arizona Venutres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1428/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.1428/DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 ITO, Ward-3(2), v. M/s. Arizona Ventures Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd., Flat No.211, 2nd Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AADCD6391B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2012-13 ITO, Ward-3(2), v. M/s. Arizona Global Services New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.211, 2nd Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AADCD7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Satpal Gulati…

The ACIT-5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

ITA 380/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

…coffers of the assessee. Reliance is placed on following judicial precedents – a. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited - Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2012] 19 taxmann.com 26 dated 23.12.2011 b. Value Capital Services Private Limited - Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2008] 307 ITR 334 dated 25.04.2008 (ii) Disallowance made u/s 41(1) amounting to Rs. 83,05,400 1. During the impugned year assessee had received certain amount from various parties as flat booking advance. It is a customary practice in the line of business in which assessee is engaged that advances are received from various parties as flat booking advance. These…

Trn Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 7991/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68

…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.). 10 ITA.No.7991/Del./2019 TRN Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 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 investigat…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Brindavan Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5272/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anil Chaturvedi[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kr. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dube, Sr. DR

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

…shareholders and the assessing officer cannot burden the assessee merely on the ground that summons issued to the investors were returned. Thereafter the Court referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) whereby it was observed that additional burden was on the department to show that even if the applicants did not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the 6 assessee. After laying down the above principle…

Hindon Forege Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3800/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 68

…Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the genuineness of the transactions had been duly established by the assessee.” 7.10. Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “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…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…ot genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax v/s value capital services p.ltd.(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi). Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of commissioner of income tax v/s GP International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax V/s Electro Polychem Ltd. (20047) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). Hon'b;e Rajasthan High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s AKJ Granites P.Lt…

Smt. Meera Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Meera Devi, I.T.O., Vs. 772, Sindhi Colony, Raja Ward 6(1), Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afnpd 6394 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Fca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :11/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & 2006 taxman Delhi High alloyes Ltd.(2012) 254 Court 3 CIT Vs. Arunananda 15 taxman.com Karnataka High textiles(P) Ltd.(2011) 226 Court 4 CIT Vs. Dwrakadhish 194 Taxman 43 Delhi high Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) Court 5 CIT Vs. Value Capital 307 ITR 334 Delhi High Services (P) Ltd. (2008) Court 1.2 AO FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HIS BELIEF THAT THE CREDITORS WERE BOGUS. HE MERELY ACTED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. The ld. A.O. merely acted on surmises and conjectures and failed to bring any material evidences on record to support his belief that the creditors we…

Bmr Polymers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 5936/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Ito Bmr Polymers (P) Ltd. Flat No. 42, Bank Apartments, Ward-1(3) Plot No. 22, Sector-4, Dwarka, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi Aabcb4954E (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Rajiv Saxena & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Advs Respondent By Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 133(6)Section 68

…t been discharged and aforesaid finding has been recorded as without any material and hence the addition made is unsustainable in law. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. Real Time Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 306 ITR 55. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 316 thereby following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Orissa Corporations 159 ITR 78. The Ld. AR f…

Thirubala Chemicals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 7130/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshist Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the genuineness of the transactions had been duly established by the assessee.” 7.10. Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “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 26 ITA.No.7130/Del//2019 M/s. Thirubala Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. actually emanated from the coffers of t…

Income Tax Officer, Bundi vs. M/S Aravali Prime Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bundi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 801/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul , Addl. CIT -. DR &

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ompanies not doing any business or trade or say they are NBFCs. What is important is that investment into assessee-company is made out of its own coffers. In this regard, one may refer to following judgments: In CIT v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. 12008] 307 ITR 334 (Del.), it was held as under :- '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 the assessee…

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 853/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Uditi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…i High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Gangeshwar Metals Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 10 (Del.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220 (Del.) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., 307 ITR 334 (Del.). 13. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. submitted that SEBI is a statutory authority, therefore, their findings of fact are binding. He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has summarised the findings of the interim Order of the SEBI in his findings in which it is clearly borne-out that t…

Meenu Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 8333/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiita.No.8333/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Meenu Kapoor, 819 Katra Neel, The Acit, Circle-47(1), Chandni Chowk, Vs., Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi. Pan Aajpk6319D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.K. Singhal, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 Order Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. This Appeal By Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Dated 03.09.2019, For The A.Y. 2016-2017, Challenging The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.10,20,45,840/- On Account Of Unexplained Loan Under Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 68

…ioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the genuineness of the transactions had been duly established by the assessee.” 6.2. Decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : 14 ITA.No.8333/Del./2019 Meenu Kapoor,Delhi. “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…