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, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…54 CTR 392 (Del) " CIT Vs Anil Bhatia 211 Taxmann 453 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Ors 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 319 ITR (ST) 5 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.) " Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment ltd. 194 Taxman 43 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) " CIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Nem Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau) 11. It was further submitted that the decision of the Hon’…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Ltd. (1993) 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " CIT Vs Achal Investments Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211 (Del.) " CIT Vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 " Sarthak Securities Co. (P) ltd. Vs ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del.) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that there were sufficient reasons for the AO to belief that the income had escaped assessment and proceedings were initiated after recording the reasons and that reassessment was valid if there was prima facie…

M/S. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2491/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. DCIT, Unit No. 5D, 5th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, JW Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi PAN:AACCG5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, Unit No. 5D, 5th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, JW Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi PAN:AACCG5308E (Appellant…

M/S. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2485/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aaccb2540F (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb6551B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

M/S. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

ITA 2159/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwanikumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt.Shafali Swaroop, CIT-DR &

Section 153CSection 234ASection 68

…assessee-company to take any loan or credits or it actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee-company. In support of this proposition, we rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Shares Pvt. Ltd., 307 ITR 334. 12.9. In this case, the A.O. made addition for failure to explain source of the source i.e., the source of creditor M/s. Double Star Builders Pvt. Ltd., who allegedly took entry from Jain Brothers through Today Group of cases which is not permissible in Law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dwaradhish Investment (P.) Ltd., (2…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Luminant Investment Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2067/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 68

…y the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. 12 M/s. Luminant Investment Ltd. 22 We would like to refer to another judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Value Capital Services P. Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 334. The court in that case held that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if share applicants did not have the means to make 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. In theabsence of such findings, ad…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Khushboo Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3647/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148Section 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 11 M/s. Khshboo Exports Pvt. Ltd. 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…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R

Section 147

…re of the accommodation entry, as had this been the assessee’s own funds, assessee would not refund the same. There is no evidence to establish that any money originated from the coffers of the assessee. CIT vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. i. reported in 307 ITR 334 CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. ii. reported in 306 ITR 35 The share applicant to whom the summons were served and replies were also filed, addition is liable to be deleted (Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Empire Buildtech (P.) Ltd reported in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi). Reliance placed by the revenue on the statements of Shri. Rajesh…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Greenland Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1528/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 1528/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2003-04. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Greenland Finance & Ward : 12 (2), Vs. Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 306, Sharp Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. Pan : Aaacg 3755 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. D. R

Section 68

…) CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 43 (Del.); (iii) CIT Vs. Gangour Investment Ltd. (2009) 179 Taxman 1 (Del.); (iv) CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.); (v) CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.); (vi) CIT Vs. Pradeep Gupta 207 CTR 115 (Del.); (vii) CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278. 3.3 The ld. AR contended further that proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.04.2013 and thus it would be effective only from assessment year 2013-14 onward and not for the subject a…

Chaitanya Industries Pvt. Ltd., Jajpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

ITA 328/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhm/S. Chaitanya Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (1), Chorda, Jajpur Road, Cuttack. Distt. Jajpur – 755 019. (Pan : Aaccc7061L)

For Appellant: Shri G. Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK) BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Chaitanya Industries Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Chorda, Jajpur Road, Cuttack. Distt. Jajpur – 755 019. (PAN : AACCC7061L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri G. Nayak, AR REVENUE BY : Shri A. Tigga, DR Date of Hearing : 26.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, M/s. Chaitanya Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the aforesaid appeal sought t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vibhuti Trading Corp., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2289/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. M/S. Vibhuti Trading Corp., E-27, Income Tax Officer, Ward - 23(4), Room No. 188, C.R. Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi Building, New Delhi Pan : Aacfv8281A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 172/Del/2013 { In Ita No. 2289/Del/2012 } Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Vibhuti Trading Corp., E-27, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -23(4), Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi Room No. 188, C.R. Building, New Delhi Pan : Aacfv8281A (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. K.P. Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 23.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2017 Order

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…btors represented 6 unexplained cash credits. The appellant also pleaded that the A.O. has not been able to show that the said amounts actually emanated from the coffers of the appellant. The appellant relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court reported at 307 ITR 334. No other detail, document or evidence was furnished by the appellant on this issue. On the other hand, the A.O. has made a detailed order wherein he has brought out the facts that appellant had used the sundry debtors account of debtors which were untraceable to bring in cash in its books of accounts. During the year under consideration, the app…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Mr. Joginder Pal Singh, New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1942/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 133Section 143Section 68

…under section 68 of the Act and that once the assessee has discharged his primary onus, the burden shifts to the AO to prove that the transaction of advance was not genuine. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi reported in 307 ITR 334 for the proposition that the burden was on the AO to show that the money received originated from the coffers of the assessee company. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further observed that the AO has not specifically brought any I.T.A. No. 1942/Del/2014 Assessment year 2009-10 evidence to contrary to show that the transaction was not genuine and that t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/169/2017HC Delhi14 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 68

…$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 169/2017, C.M. APPL.7385/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate, for appellant. Versus LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Monika Ghai and Ms. Shayamlima Borha, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 14.03.2017 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) order upholding the Appellate Commissioner’s opinion that the ad…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 971/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s are given to the AO then the department is free to proceed in their individual assessment, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. On this issue another decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services (307 ITR 334) is also quite relevant wherein the court inter alia observed that there is additional burden on the revenue in as much as even if the applicant does not have the means for the investment, it must show that the investment made by the applicant actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee, so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed inco…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ms. Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 620/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

M/S. Blossom Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 186/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…for sale of investments actually emanated from the coffers of the appellant-company so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of the appellant-company. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334(Del) has held that: "There was an additional burden cast on the revenue to prove that the investment made by the applicant actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it (o be treated as undisclosed income ". q. Further the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Medshave Health Care Ltd. [2010-ITRV-HC- DEL-13] ITA No. 124/2010 pron…

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6365/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 131Section 68

…ustify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. 22. We would like to refer to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (Del) 511 : (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del). The Court in that case held that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if share application did not have the means to make 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. In the absence of such find…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gazipur Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1638/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Gazipur Properties Pvt. Ltd., Ward-12(1), 150, Bank Enclave, Vs. New Delhi Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5020B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 68

…following decisions of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi:- i) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195; ii) CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2007) 299 ITR 268 (Del). iii) CIT vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. TDI Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 26 DTK (Del.) 358;and v) Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 179 Taxman 25(Del); (2010)320 ITR 419 (Delhi); vi) CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals (P) Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR (Del) 139;(2011)330 ITR 603(Delhi) vii) CIT vs United Biotech Pvt Ltd 2010-TIOL-533-HC-DEL-IT dated 05-07-2010; viii)…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 647/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…er take such repudiation at face value andconstrue it, without more, against the assessee. (7) The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber repudiation. " iii) CIT vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.)- Hon'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. (199I) 192 ITR 287 and a Full Bench decision in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [J99-1} 205 ITR 98. Several other decisions…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 306/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68