What is CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. authority for?

An addition to income for alleged bogus transactions or cash credits is unjustified when the assessee provides explanations and documentary evidence, and the Assessing Officer fails to conduct independent investigations or present adverse material. The veracity of financial transactions, rather than merely the supplier's address, is crucial.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd.?

108 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. (330 ITR 603), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 37(1), Section 132(4), Section 69A.

CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. (330 ITR 603)

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Luxman Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R Co No.93/Del/2018 (Ita No.817/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd November, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. Co No.93/Del/2018 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…. Ld AR also placed reliance on the judgments in CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Delhi), CIT vs. Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. {[2014] 49 taxmann.com 13 (Del.) 361 ITR 155 (Del.), Commissioner of Income- Tax vs Winstral Petrochemicals p. Ltd. 201 1 330 ITR 603 (Del.), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi), CIT v. Stellar Investments Ltd 192 ITR 287 (Del.) & CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 2001 251 ITR 263 (SC) and contented that the appellant duly discharged the initial burden to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness by submitting necessary documentary evide…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6956/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies Of Mmg Group & Has Business Interest In Several Segments Like Chartering & Leasing Of Vessels To Ongc & Shipping, Etc. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015. During The Course Of Search, Documents & Data Storage Devices, Etc., Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th July, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.12,15,49,580/-. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 20Th May, 2016 Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Certain Information. The Assessee Complied To The Said Questionnaire By Filing The Requisite Details.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…7. Ld AR also placed reliance on the judgments in CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Delhi), CIT vs. Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. {[2014] 49 taxmann.com 13 (Del.) 361 ITR 155 (Del.)}, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Winstral Petrochemicals p. Ltd. 2011 330 ITR 603 (Del.), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi), CIT v. Stellar Investments Ltd 192 ITR 287 (Del.) & CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 2001 251 ITR 263 (SC) and contented that the appellant duly discharged the initial burden to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness by submitting necessary documentary evide…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs Moon Beverages Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J Co No.06/Del/2019 (Ita No.6955/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Moon Beverages Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.06/Del/2019 The Assessee Has Filed Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153A

…7. Ld AR also placed reliance on the judgments in CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Delhi), CIT vs. Nipuan Auto (P) Ltd. {[2014] 49 taxmann.com 13 (Del.) 361 ITR 155 (Del.)}, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Winstral Petrochemicals p. Ltd. 2011 330 ITR 603 (Del.), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi), CIT v. Stellar Investments Ltd 192 ITR 287 (Del.) & CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 2001 251 ITR 263 (SC) and contented that the appellant duly discharged the initial burden to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness by submitting necessary documentary evide…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as next drawn to the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT-II v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Del), Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del HC) and CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del) that have uniformly held that the mere fact that the Inspector’s Report alleges the parties to be non-existent at the given address would not give the Revenue a right to invoke section 68 without additional material in support, which as per the Ld. A.R. does not exist in these cases, since the impugned additions have been made solely on s…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as next drawn to the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT-II v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 26 (Del), Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del HC) and CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del) that have uniformly held that the mere fact that the Inspector’s Report alleges the parties to be non-existent at the given address would not give the Revenue a right to invoke section 68 without additional material in support, which as per the Ld. A.R. does not exist in these cases, since the impugned additions have been made solely on s…

ACIT, CC- 15, New Delhi vs. M/S. Brahmaputra Realtors (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

ITA 3911/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…O in response to notice 131 of the Act cannot justify the addition transactions. He accordingly heavily relied on the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition. He also relied on the following decisions:- i. CIT vs Winstral Petrochemcials (P) Ltd. 330 ITR 603 ii. CIT vs Dataware (P) Ltd. in ITA No.263/2011(Cal) iii. Pr. CIT vs Chain House International (P) Ltd. 262 Taxman 207 (SC) iv. CIT vs Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) v. Moti Adhesives (P) Ltd. vs ITO in vi. Prabhatam Advertising (P) Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No.5798/Del/2014 vii. DCUIT vs ATC Realtors (P) Ltd. 108 taxmann.com 383(Gua)…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2106/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2003-2004 Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., [Formerly known as M/s. The Income Tax Officer, Shalom Exim (P) Ltd., and then as Mamram vs. Ward – 8 (3), Developers P. Ltd.,] G-18 & 19, Mamram Majesty New Delhi. Mall Plot, Road No.43, Guru Harkishan Marg, Pitampura, Delhi – 034 PAN AAHCS2266E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.…

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

…hi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (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 a…

G K Footcare India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gurmeet Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e assessee could have made endeavour to give the correct address, if some of the parties have shifted to other places or why they did not responded. In support, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Winstral Petro Chemicals, 330 ITR 603 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal, in ITA No.325/2008. Thus, no addition could be made u/s.68, because purchases made from such parties have duly been accepted and the corresponding sales. 6. Ld. counsel further pointed out that out of total 14 parties, there were opening balances in the account of 10 parties and substantial…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “C” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.3800/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Hindon Forge (P) The DCIT, Circle-1, Ltd., Ghaziabad. PAN AAACH4606E vs Aayakar Bhawan, C.G.O. C/o. M/s. Malik & Co., Complex-1, Hapur Road, Advocates, 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Ghaziabad. Meerut City. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : This appeal…

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Sunstar Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 816/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13