CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd.

330 ITR 603High Court2011#1001 most cited

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.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. · Winstral Petrochemicals · Section 68 · Section 37(1) · Section 143(3) · bogus purchases · cash credit addition · non-existent parties · lack of AO investigation · documentary evidence · veracity of financial transactions · supplier address dispute

Also reported as

10 Taxmann.com 137

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 68Section 131
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 194qsection 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 65bsection 65statement under section 132(4)section 131(1a)retracted statementsurvey under section 133asection 18

Judgments citing CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. S.V. Liquor India Ltd

ITA/965/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…any steps to rebut the confirmation and evidence tendered by the shareholders. (v) The common address of shareholders was not a valid basis to disregard the claim of the Assessee in view of the decision of this Court in CITV. Winstral-Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del). (vi) The subsequent sale of the shares subscribed was not germane to the question of the genuineness of the share capital amount received by the Assessees. Once the capital raised stood explained, the issue of ITA Nos.871, S72, 873, 874, 875, 876, 883, 962, 963, 964, 965 & 966 of 2015 Page 12 of 23 e disinvestment by the shareholder sub…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Svp Builders (India) Limited

ITA/871/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

…ps to rebut the confirmation and evidence tendered by the shareholders. (v) The common address of shareholders was not a valid basis to disregard the claim of the Assessee in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Winstral-Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del). (vi) The subsequent sale of the shares subscribed was not germane to the question of the genuineness of the share capital amount received by the Assessees. Once the capital raised stood explained, the issue of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by sc…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

ITA/235/2015HC Delhi27 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…:9679-DB ITA Nos. 234, 235 & 236/2015 Page 12 of 23 (v) The common address of shareholders was not a valid basis to disregard the claim of the Assessee in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Winstral-Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del). (vi) The subsequent sale of the shares subscribed was not germane to the question of the genuineness of the share capital amount received by the Assessees. Once the capital raised stood explained, the issue of disinvestment by the shareholder subsequently was a non-issue. The addition if at all was to be examined in the hands of th…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

ITA/236/2015HC Delhi27 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…:9679-DB ITA Nos. 234, 235 & 236/2015 Page 12 of 23 (v) The common address of shareholders was not a valid basis to disregard the claim of the Assessee in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Winstral-Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del). (vi) The subsequent sale of the shares subscribed was not germane to the question of the genuineness of the share capital amount received by the Assessees. Once the capital raised stood explained, the issue of disinvestment by the shareholder subsequently was a non-issue. The addition if at all was to be examined in the hands of th…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

ITA/234/2015HC Delhi27 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…:9679-DB ITA Nos. 234, 235 & 236/2015 Page 12 of 23 (v) The common address of shareholders was not a valid basis to disregard the claim of the Assessee in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Winstral-Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del). (vi) The subsequent sale of the shares subscribed was not germane to the question of the genuineness of the share capital amount received by the Assessees. Once the capital raised stood explained, the issue of disinvestment by the shareholder subsequently was a non-issue. The addition if at all was to be examined in the hands of th…

M/S. Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2436/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhirshri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

…t of the claim. He placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Fairinvest Ltd 83 CCH 265 [DHC] 2. CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd 333 ITR 119 [Del] 3. CIT Vs. Value Capital Services P. Ltd 307 ITR 334 4. CIT Vs. Winstral Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd 330 ITR 603 [DHC] 5. CIT Vs. Expo Auto [P] Ltd 361 ITR 155 [DHC] 6. CIT Vs. Expo Globe India Ltd 361 ITR 477 [DHC] 7. CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd 330 ITR 603 [DHC] 8. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 212/2012 [Del] 15. The ld. D.R, on the other hand, tried to justify the orders of the authorities below on the issue. He submitted that the AO ma…

CIT vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt Ltd

ITA/1019/2011HC Delhi22 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…f r Reserved on: 14^'' August, 2013 % Date of Decision : 22"^* November, 2013 b $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1019/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus NR PORTFOLIO PVT LTD. Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. RishabhKapoor, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. For detailed order see ITA 1018/2011, Commissioner ofIncome Tax VsNR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. pronounced today. NOVEMBER 22"^ 2013 NA —. (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE 'Ojud , — (SANJEEV SAC…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt Ltd

ITA/1018/2011HC Delhi22 Nov 2013
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…ITA Nos. 1018/2011 & 1019/2011 Page 1 of 24 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1018/2011 Reserved on: 14th August, 2013 % Date of Decision : 22nd November, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus NR PORTFOLIO PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocates. + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1019/2011…