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 367,154 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 68Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131Section 37(1)Section 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

onus of proofretraction of statementretracted statementcreditworthiness of the creditorprincipal officershare capital and share premiumsource of sourcestatement under section 132(4)share application moneyaddition under section 68genuineness of the transactionaccommodation entry

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

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5133/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence". Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi). ii. 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). iii. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Electro Polychem Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). iv. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5820/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence". Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi). ii. 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). iii. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Electro Polychem Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). iv. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s…

M/S. Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed.” 6.2. We find that the issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Value Capital Services P Ltd reported in (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) , wherein it was held that: "In respect of amounts shown as received by the assessee towards share application money from 33 persons, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce all these persons. While accepting the explanation and ITA No. 632/KoI12011--C-AM M/s. R.B Horticulture 6 & Animal Proj. Co. Ltd the statements given by…

ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abacus Real Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 14(1)(1), Room No. 431, Abacus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 101, Kalpatru Synergy, Opp. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Grand Hyaatsantacruz East, Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Aagca4865L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT- DR &
Section 143(3)Section 68

…nus of establishing not only the identity but also the creditworthiness as well as the genuineness of the transaction as required u/s 68 of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del), wherein it is held that unless the Department is able to show that the amount received towards share capital actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee-company, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.35,00,00,000/-. 5. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Represe…

The ITO, Ward -2(2)(2), Surat vs. Smt. Hansaben Bipiinkumar Kothari, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 613/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)

…addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act once the initial onus has been discharged and onus has been shifted to the department. This is the view of the Courts including that of Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.307 ITR 334. The Hon'ble Delhi court in the case of Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments 64Taxmann.com 329, has relied on various decisions and on 'similar circumstances held that the assessee has discharged it's onus u/s 68 of the IT Act. In the above case the Delhi High Court has cited the case of Mod. Creations Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where the same Court negative…

Navyug Iron Traders, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 553/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…rs of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. We rely 10 ITA.No.553/Del./2017 M/s. Navyug Iron Traders, Ghaziabad. upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., 307 ITR 334 (Del.). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that when it is explained that trading advances were received and when the material could not be supplied, amounts have been returned in subsequent year, same could not be disputed by the authorities below to treat the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Consi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5323/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…nd 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 the Hon’ble 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 assessee. After laying down the above principle…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…loan received by the assessee has been originated from the coffers of the assessee. In support of the aforesaid, the appellant seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 334, wherein their lordship’s have held as under: “Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the creditworthiness of the applicants can nevertheless be examined by the Assessing Officer. It is quite obvious that is very difficult for the Assessee to show the creditworthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability…

ACIT - 16(3), Mumbai vs. Shrey Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6528/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…nt is free to proceed to reopen the individual assessments of the shareholders, but it cannot treat the share application money as undisclosed income of the assessee company. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 has held that if the department wants to make addition on account of share application money, burden is on the department to show that even if the applicants do not have the means to make the investment, investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of the assesse…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…n it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence". Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Value Capital Services P.Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi). ii 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). iii. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Electro Polychem Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). iv. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. AKJ…

Shri Jaipal Singh Mahalawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 365/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Transaction

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain (Adv) &For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
Section 131Section 143(3)

…a. CIT, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) b. M/s. Pragya Tendu Leaves Processing Company vs. CIT, Ranchi, Income Tax Appeal No.38 of 2008, Dated 12.10.2017, Jharkhand Hon'ble High Court c. CIT Vs. Value Capital services, [2008] 307 ITR 334, Delhi HC d. Smt. Vimla Rani Aggarwal Vs. ITO, ITA No. 197/Agra/2013, Dated 31.01.2014, Agra ITAT e. Arceli Reality Limited, ITA No. 6492/Mum/2016 dated 21.04.2017, ITAT Mumbai. f. ACIT Ludhiana Vs. AP Refinery Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 186/Del/2016 dated 10.02.2017, ITAT Chandigarh 5. Reliance was also placed by the ld AR on the judicial pronounce…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) 1 vs. Nra Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Through Director

C.A. No.-002463-002463 - 2019Supreme Court05 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 148Section 68

…of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge the primary onus. 14 (2007) 158 Taxman 440 15 [2008]307 ITR 334 23 ii. The Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the credit-worthiness of the creditor/ subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers, and ascertain whether the transaction is genuine, or these are bogus entries of name-lenders. iii. If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubi…

ITO, WD-2(1), Siliguri, Darjeeling vs. M/S Samaksh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1036/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am] I.T.A. No. 1036/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-2(1), Siliguri Vs. M/S. Samaksh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Pan : Aaqcs 2780 J Appellant Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 68

…question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed.” 6.2. We find that the issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Value Capital Services P Ltd reported in (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) , wherein it was held that: "In respect of amounts shown as received by the assessee towards share application money from 33 persons, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce all these persons. While accepting the explanation and ITA No. 632/KoI12011--C-AM M/s. R.B Horticulture 6 & Animal Proj. Co. Ltd the statements given by…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4875/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…(11) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP); (18) CIT v. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd [(2013) 35 toxmonn.com 470 (All); (19) CIT v. GP International Ltd [(2010) 186 Toxmon 229 (Pun &Hor); (20) CIT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4874/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…(11) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP); (18) CIT v. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd [(2013) 35 toxmonn.com 470 (All); (19) CIT v. GP International Ltd [(2010) 186 Toxmon 229 (Pun &Hor); (20) CIT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4873/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…(11) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP); (18) CIT v. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd [(2013) 35 toxmonn.com 470 (All); (19) CIT v. GP International Ltd [(2010) 186 Toxmon 229 (Pun &Hor); (20) CIT…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Blisswood Green Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5120/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ore it. In these circumstances, the inferences drawn by the CIT(A) are not only factual but facially accurate.” 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) and of ITAT Delhi Bench in Prabhatam Investment (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA 11 No. 2523 to 2425/Del/2015 dated 17.04.2017, which go to support the contentions of the assessee and negate the objections of the Assessing Officer. 13. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as to the credibility of explanation of assessee is the basis of invocat…

M/S Samco Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2372/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
Section 133(6)Section 68

…of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78. He has relied upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls and Investment Ltd. 64 taxmann.com 329, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334, judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360. He has submitted that mere low returned income of the creditor is no ground to doubt the transaction with the assessee. He has relied upon order of ITAT Delhi ‘G’ Bench in the case of M/s Topline Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 6507/Del/2017 dated 13.04.201…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ectly from the coffers of the assessee company. In support of the aforesaid, the ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 16 appellant seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Value capital Services (P) Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 334, wherein their lordship’s have held as under: “Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the creditworthiness of the applicants can nevertheless be examined by the Assessing Officer. It is quite obvious that is very difficult for the Assessee to show the creditworthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ectly from the coffers of the assessee company. In support of the aforesaid, the ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 16 appellant seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Value capital Services (P) Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 334, wherein their lordship’s have held as under: “Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the creditworthiness of the applicants can nevertheless be examined by the Assessing Officer. It is quite obvious that is very difficult for the Assessee to show the creditworthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability…