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 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 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.

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

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

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

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…

I.T.O WD - 4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Martin Burn Construction Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2154/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviito, M/S. Martin Burn Vs Ward-4(2), P-7, Construction Pvt.Ltd., 1, Chowringhee Square, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th Kolkata-700001. Floor, Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aabch2152C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Saurabh Kumar, Addl.Cit, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Arvind Agarwal, Advocate & Sh. Rajat Agarwal, Aca Date Of Hearing 18.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.12.2018 Order

Section 145(3)

…addition of share capital amounting to Rs.32,00,000/- stands explained. Now, there is no need to discuss the applicability of case decisions cited by the appellant in support of its contentions i.e. Sl.No. Name Citation 1. UT v. Value Capital Services (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) Pvt.Ltd. 2. Sky High Properties Pvt. Ltd. v ITO (2002) 258 HR (A.T.) 98 (ITAT, Delhi) 3. Exoimp Resources (India) Ltd. v (2006) 276 M? 87 (C31.) CIT(Cal.) 4. CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (S.C.) Thus the contentions of the appellant are found acceptable. The ground of appeal succeeds. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.32…

Ajay Kumar Mamgain, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward-1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 903/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar Mamgain Ito, Ward 1(4)(1), Village Kaluwala, Vs. Haridwar Badowala Bhaniawala Dehradun Uttaranchal-248144 (Pan: Ceypm0160F) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Anant, Sr. DR

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

…et aside.” 13 ITA.Nos.449, 450, 451 /Del./2016 & C.Os. 5.1 I also find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. reported in 306 ITR 55 and CIT vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 334 wherein, it has been held that burden is on the Assessing Officer to show that money received originated from the coffers of the assessee and since in the instant case, burden had not been discharged addition made is not valid. 5.2 I further find that it is a settled law that creditworthiness of lender is to be examined by Assessing Officer of…

ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Greeksoft Institute of Financial Market Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3969/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 68

…Ltd. the payments made by them to the assessee company. The assessee relied upon various case laws such as CIT vs. Lovely Exports P Ltd (2008)(216 CTR (SC) 195); Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd vs. CIT (155 Taxman 289)(Raj); CIT vs. Value Capital Services P Ltd (307 ITR 334)(Delhi) and CIT vs. VLS Foods P Ltd (203 Taxman 213)(Delhi) and contended that, in case source of an investor is not proved, the addition can only be made in the case of Investor and not in the hands of investee. 6. The AO was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee. He noticed that the funds to these two companies have come from othe…

Stryton Exim India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.(Emphasis Supplied) Legal Precedence That the appellant further, in support of his contention, places reliance on the following judgments:- CIT vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) - H'on'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- 5: While setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals); the Tribunal relied upon two decisions of this court, namely CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 and a Full Bench decision in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd [1994] 205 ITR 98. Several other decisions have…

Karsandas Lalkhman Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 342/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. Karsandas Lakhman Acit, Circle 18(2) Jhaveri Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor 219, Shaikh Memon Street Vs. Earnest House, Zaveri Bazar Narimanpoint Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaafk3837B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi & Shri Khatiwala Respondent By: Shri Sachchidanand Dube Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-29, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2016 & It Relates To A.Y. 2012-13. 1. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Carrying On The Business Of Dealers & Exporters In Precious Metals, Diamonds, Stones, Gold & Silver Jewellery. Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed On 27.09.2012 Declaring Total Income At `1,48,23,960/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Found That Advances Received From One Shri Quasim Mohd Yousuf A Bastak & Smt. Samira Abbas Was Shown In The Books. Assessee Had Shown An Advance Of `1.50 Crores From Shri Quasim Mohd Yousuf A Bastak & `75 Lakhs From Smt. Samira Abbas. It Was Explained

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 68

…e case of CIT Vrs. Orissa Corp Pvt. Ltd. 1986 25 Taxman80F, ACIT Vrs. Swift Sole India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 95 taxman. 286, Crystal Networks vrs. CIT (2013)33 taxamn.com 432, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334, Yash Developers vrs. DCIT, (ITAT-Mum), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 11 M/s. Karsandas Lakhman Jhaveri/ACIT, Circle 18(2) the case of CIT Vrs. Winstral Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 10 tasman.com 137. In all the above cases, it has been held that where all the documents are genuine then the additions could not be made as cash credit for advance…

Anju Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1322/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

…missioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the genuineness of the transactions had been duly established by the assessee. ” x. Decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services P. 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 t…

M/S. Psychotropics Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 133(6)Section 234ASection 24

…in the bank accounts of some shareholders is questionable, AO has not further probed the matter—Therefore, remedy lies in reopening the case of these investors and addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee 7 CIT vs. Value capital services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (DHC) Income—Cash credit—Share application money—CIT(A) accepted the existence of the applicants—It is very difficult for the assessee to show the creditworthiness of strangers— Revenue has 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 compa…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 133ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. Nos.1448, 1449 & 1467/Mum/2017 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dy. CIT-CC-7(2), M/s. Manba Finance Ltd. Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, 324, Runwal Height, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 4681 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Respondent by : Dr. P. Daniel Date of Hearing : 06.08.2018 : 05.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the Revenu…

M/S Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…M/s. Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward.1(1)(3)/SRT/I.T.A. No. 161/SRT/2018/A.Y.12-13 Page 1 of 24 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, , , , लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.161/SRT/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Kamal Rayon Private Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1) (3), Surat. 1003, New Sardar Traders Market, Sahara Darwaja, Surat-395010 [PAN: AAMCS 3194 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओ…

ITO WD 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Mineral Resources P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3709/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. B. R. Baskaran, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3709/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: ShriShaileshDoshi, AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…AR also relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High in the case of CIT vrs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 15 taxmann.com 183 (Bombay), CIT Vrs. Value 14 I.T.A. No. 3709/Mum/2016 Rajendra Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd Capital Services Pvt. Ltd (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) and CIT Vrs. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd. (2011) 10 taxmann.com 137 (Delhi). 6. We have heard counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgments cited by the parties as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to eva…

Sh. Swami Sharan Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4549/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 4Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4549/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) Shri Swami Saran Garg, vs. ITO, Ward 2 (3), 66, Kambal Wala Bagh, New Delhi. Muzafarnagar. (PAN : AATPG8622P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20.09.2018 Date of Order : 03.10.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Shri Swami Saran Garg (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaidka Woolen & Hossiery Mills P Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5302/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R

…not undertaken any investigation of the veracity of the documents submitted by the assessee, the departmental appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.” 25.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) 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 29 ITA.No.5302/Del./2015 & C.O.No.409/Del./2015 M/s. Jaidka Woolen & Hosiery Mills P. Ltd., New Delhi. did not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by them actually eman…

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5637/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahurajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-134, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. New Delhi Aaacr0366B Appellant Respondent

Section 68

…ys Ltd. & Ors., 361 ITR 220 (Del.); iii. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. 356 ITR 65 (MP); iv. CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del.); v. CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603; vi. CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.). 14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 held that “no adverse inference should be drawn, if shareholders failed to respond to the notice issued by the AO”. 15. The AO noted in the assessment order that the DIT (Inv.) in the course of investigation in the case of Shri Mukesh Gupta, Shri Ra…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sohail Financials Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4867/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Sohail Financials Ltd, Ward-9(1), C-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs3643M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…om alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are great the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual be regarded as undisclosed income of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (Del) 511 : (2008) 307 ITR 334 “Income-cash credit-share application money-CIT(A) accepted the existence of the application - it is very difficult for the assessee to show the creditworthiness of strangers-Revenue has not sjiown that the application did not have the means to make the investment and that such investment actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company…

Raj Kumar Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1323/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vs Raj Kumar Chawla ACIT A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-IX Delhi. New Delhi. AALPC1209J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by S/Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Ashish Chadha, CA, Kislaya Parashar, Adv. Revenue by Smt. Paramita Tripathi, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 04.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2018 ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 15.12.2014 for AY 2010-11. 2. Briefly…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sutlej Agro Products Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…oner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the genuineness of the transactions had been duly established by the assessee.” 9.12. 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A

…2018,1180/Del/2018 1181/Del/2018 ( By Revenue) 1464/Del/2018, 1465/Del/2018, 1466/Del/2018, 1467/Del/2018, 1468/Del/2018, 1469/Del/2018, 1470/Del/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2015-16 h. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 334 (Delhi); i. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) [1963 ] 49 ITR 723 (Bombay) Copy of statement recorded was not confronted to the appellant xii. Even though the same has been used against the appellant. xiii. The AO is duty bound to suo moto furnish the statement / evidence etc he seeks to rely upon against the appellan…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1467/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A