Commissioner of Income Tax v. AKJ Granites P.Ltd.

301 ITR 298High Court2008#4029 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. AKJ Granites P.Ltd. authority for?

When share applications are accompanied by share application money, no presumption can be drawn that the money belongs to the assessee. Therefore, no amount can be assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee solely on this basis under Section 68.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v AKJ Granites · Section 68 · share application money · genuineness of transaction · undisclosed income · presumption · no presumption of ownership · CIT v Barkha Synthetics

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

Issues it is cited on

share application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 131undisclosed incomesection 68section 69transferpersoncompanyindiadocument

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. AKJ Granites P.Ltd.

SUBHARTI MEDIA LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 1715/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2693/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Acit Subharti Media Ltd., Central Circle, Vs. Subhartipuram, Nh-58, Meerut. Delhi Haridwar Byepass Road, Meerut.

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 68

…Pvt. Ltd. (333 ITR 116) (Ker.); 5. CIT Vs. JD Security and finance Ltd. (350 ITR 220) (All.); 6. CIT Vs. Mishra Preservers Pvt. Ltd. (350 ITR 222) (All.); 7. CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (304 ITR 334) (Del.); 8. CIT Vs. AKJ Granites Pvt. Ltd. (301 ITR 298) (Raj.); 9. CIT Vs. G.P. International Ltd. (325 ITR 25) (P&H). The Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the evidences placed on record deleted the addition of Rs.2,19,91,020/- made by the AO. 8. Coming to the addition of Rs.2,19,86,960/- the assessee furnished additional evidences before the ld.CIT(A) in terms of Rule…

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S SUBHARTI MEDIA LTD., MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 2693/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2693/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Acit Subharti Media Ltd., Central Circle, Vs. Subhartipuram, Nh-58, Meerut. Delhi Haridwar Byepass Road, Meerut.

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 68

…Pvt. Ltd. (333 ITR 116) (Ker.); 5. CIT Vs. JD Security and finance Ltd. (350 ITR 220) (All.); 6. CIT Vs. Mishra Preservers Pvt. Ltd. (350 ITR 222) (All.); 7. CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (304 ITR 334) (Del.); 8. CIT Vs. AKJ Granites Pvt. Ltd. (301 ITR 298) (Raj.); 9. CIT Vs. G.P. International Ltd. (325 ITR 25) (P&H). The Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the evidences placed on record deleted the addition of Rs.2,19,91,020/- made by the AO. 8. Coming to the addition of Rs.2,19,86,960/- the assessee furnished additional evidences before the ld.CIT(A) in terms of Rule…

BESTLINE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-12(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 3500/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 68

…person" is incorrect and not sustainable. For Bootlina Preparties Pvt. Lte e. That the addition made to income is incorrect and is against law in view of the decision of The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AKJ Granites (P) Ltd. 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) referring to the decision in the case of Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2005) 197 CTR (Raj.) 432, wherein it is held that where share applications are received and accompanied with share application money, no presumption can be drawn that the same belong to the assessee, and по amount can be assessed as undisclosed income of the ass…

NISA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…nternational Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax V/s Electro Polychem Ltd. (20047) 294 ITR 661 (Mad). Hon'b;e Rajasthan High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s AKJ Granites P.Ltd.(2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax v/s Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. (2011) 51 DTR 74 (Delhi). 19. It is a settled law that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to confront the assessee with any material collected by the Assessing Officer at the back of the assessee, and in case of statement of third part…

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

…d. (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. AKJ Granites P.Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) v. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. (2011) 51 DTR 74 (Dellhi). Sec.69 places the burden of proof on the tax payer to explain the nature and source of any credit found in the books. But, when assessee proves or submit the basic information like identification, genuineness o…

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

…d. (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. AKJ Granites P.Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) v. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. (2011) 51 DTR 74 (Dellhi). Sec.69 places the burden of proof on the tax payer to explain the nature and source of any credit found in the books. But, when assessee proves or submit the basic information like identification, genuineness o…

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

…l 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 Granites P.Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) v. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. (2011) 51 DTR 74 (Delhi). Sec. 69 places the burden of proof on the tax payer to explain the nature and source of any credit found in the books. But, when assessee proves or submit the basic information like identification, genuineness of…

HIGHRISE PROPCON PVT. LTD.(NOW AS N M FINANCIERS PVT. LTD.),JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

ITA 99/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133(6)Section 68

…e hands of the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 238 CTR 402 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. Devine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 207 CTR 38 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. A.K.J. Granites Pvt. Ltd. 301 ITR 298 (Raj. HC) M/s. High Rise Propcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has recorded in the assessment order that the notice was issued to the said party being share applicant at the address provided by the assessee and, therefore, if the assessee subsequently comes out with a plea that the said notice w…

ITO, JAIPUR vs. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

ITA 91/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133(6)Section 68

…e hands of the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 238 CTR 402 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. Devine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 207 CTR 38 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. A.K.J. Granites Pvt. Ltd. 301 ITR 298 (Raj. HC) M/s. High Rise Propcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has recorded in the assessment order that the notice was issued to the said party being share applicant at the address provided by the assessee and, therefore, if the assessee subsequently comes out with a plea that the said notice w…

ITO, JAIPUR vs. ALOOK FINETRADE P LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 180/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 May 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…tion made by the Assessing Officer by following the decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High ITA 180/JP/2015 & C.O. 20/JP/2015_ 11 ITO Vs Alok Fintrade P Ltd. Court in the case of Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs ACIT 197 CTR 432 (Raj) and CIT Vs AKJ Granites P Ltd. 301 ITR 298(Raj) and the relevant findings are contained at para 3.2.2.4, which is reproduced as under: “3.2.2.4 In the present case share applications are received from eight (8) different concerns accompanied with share application money, no presumption can be drawn that same belong to assessee; these application moneys cannot be assessed in his hands as…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES , JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 493 & 494/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 cuke The DCIT M/s. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs. Central Circle-2 20, Maharishi Devendra Road Jaipur Burra Bazar, Kolkata – 700 007 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG 9639 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent C.O. No. 26 & 27/JP/2017 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 493 & 494/JP/2017)…

M/S. AIRADS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4676/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR
Section 68

…returned with remarks "no such person" is incorrect and not sustainable. 4.05 That the addition made to income is incorrect and is against law in view of the decision of The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AKJ Granites (P) Ltd. 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) referring to the decision in the case of Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2005) 197 CTR (Raj.) 432, wherein it is held that where share applications are received and accompanied with 3 share application money, no presumption can be drawn that the same belong to the assessee, and no amount can be assessed as undisclosed income of the…

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

…favour of the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.’ 18. Rajasthan High Court had an occasion to deal with the submission of the Revenue predicated on Benami transactions in the case of CIT vs. AKJ Granites (P) Ltd. (2007) 212 CTR (Raj) 25 : (2008) 301 ITR 298 (Raj) and the arguments were dealt with in the following manner : ‘3. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue embedded in the said question has already been decided by this Court and governed by the ratio laid down in Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 197 CTR (Raj) 432. It…

KENHANS SHARES & STOCK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3940/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…t they are distinguishable:- (a) Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd Vs CIT (2006)(155 Taxman 289)(Raj) (b) CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008)(216 CTR (SC) 195)(SC) (c) CIT Vs. Stellar Investment ltd (2000)(164 CTR (SC) 287 (d) CIT Vs. AKJ Granites (P) Ltd (2008)(301 ITR 298) (e) CIT Vs. VRM Global Infrastructure (P) Ltd (12 taxman.com 174) The Ld CIT(A) also expressed the view that the conduct of the assessee should be examined by applying the test of human probabilities and in this regard he took support of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801). Accordingl…

DCIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. PARAMSHKTI DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9224/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.8748/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) M/S Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cent. Cir-45, Ltd., 501-B, Elegant Business Mumbai Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, J.B.Nagar, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 5835 C (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita Nos.9223&9224/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-06 & 2006-07) Acit, Cent. Cir-45, Mumbai Vs. M/S Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd., 501-B, Elegant Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, J.B.Nagar, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400059 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 5835 C (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Deepkant Prasad & Shri Nimesh Yadav सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad & Shri Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed income of the appellant company. 16. The appellant further relied upon following cases for establishing that the share application money received by the the company: • CIT v. Value Capital Services P. Ltd [307 ITR 334 (Del.)] • CIT v. AKJ Granites P. Ltd. [301 ITR 298 (Raj.)) • CIT V. First Point Finance Ltd. [286 ITR 477 (Raj.)) • Shree Barkha Synthetic Ltd. v. ACIT [283 ITR 377 (Raj.)) • CIT v. Belenje Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. (Income-tax Application No. 314 of 1993 dated 08.12.1993) • Twin Roses & Traders Agency Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 2653/Bom/1995 dated 18.10.1995) • Uma Polymers v. DCIT [100 ITD 1 (Jod…

DCIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. PARAMSHKTI DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9223/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.8748/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) M/S Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cent. Cir-45, Ltd., 501-B, Elegant Business Mumbai Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, J.B.Nagar, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 5835 C (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita Nos.9223&9224/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-06 & 2006-07) Acit, Cent. Cir-45, Mumbai Vs. M/S Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd., 501-B, Elegant Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, J.B.Nagar, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400059 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 5835 C (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Deepkant Prasad & Shri Nimesh Yadav सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad & Shri Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed income of the appellant company. 16. The appellant further relied upon following cases for establishing that the share application money received by the the company: • CIT v. Value Capital Services P. Ltd [307 ITR 334 (Del.)] • CIT v. AKJ Granites P. Ltd. [301 ITR 298 (Raj.)) • CIT V. First Point Finance Ltd. [286 ITR 477 (Raj.)) • Shree Barkha Synthetic Ltd. v. ACIT [283 ITR 377 (Raj.)) • CIT v. Belenje Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. (Income-tax Application No. 314 of 1993 dated 08.12.1993) • Twin Roses & Traders Agency Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 2653/Bom/1995 dated 18.10.1995) • Uma Polymers v. DCIT [100 ITD 1 (Jod…

PARASHAKTI DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

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

ITA 8748/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.8748/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) M/S Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cent. Cir-45, Ltd., 501-B, Elegant Business Mumbai Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, J.B.Nagar, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 5835 C (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita Nos.9223&9224/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-06 & 2006-07) Acit, Cent. Cir-45, Mumbai Vs. M/S Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd., 501-B, Elegant Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, J.B.Nagar, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400059 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 5835 C (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Deepkant Prasad & Shri Nimesh Yadav सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad & Shri Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed income of the appellant company. 16. The appellant further relied upon following cases for establishing that the share application money received by the the company: • CIT v. Value Capital Services P. Ltd [307 ITR 334 (Del.)] • CIT v. AKJ Granites P. Ltd. [301 ITR 298 (Raj.)) • CIT V. First Point Finance Ltd. [286 ITR 477 (Raj.)) • Shree Barkha Synthetic Ltd. v. ACIT [283 ITR 377 (Raj.)) • CIT v. Belenje Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. (Income-tax Application No. 314 of 1993 dated 08.12.1993) • Twin Roses & Traders Agency Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 2653/Bom/1995 dated 18.10.1995) • Uma Polymers v. DCIT [100 ITD 1 (Jod…

GUPTA CITI SHELTERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA/1324/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…f the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed." 18. Rajasthan High Court had an occasion to deal with the submission of the Revenue predicated on Benami transactions in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A/0 Granites (P) Ltd. reported as 301 ITR 298 (Raj.) and the arguments were dealt with in the following manner: ITA No.972 of 2009 "3. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue embedded in the said question has already been decided by this Court and governed by the ratio laid down in Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT…

INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA/1229/2010HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 68Section 68o

…d In favouroftheassessee.Accordingly,thisappeaIis dismissed." 18. Rajasthan High Court had an occasion to deal with the submission of the Revenue predicated on Benami transactions in the case of Cammissioner of Income Tax Vs, AKJ Granites (F) Ltd. reported as 301 ITR 298 (Raj.)andtheargumentsweredea|twithinthefol|owing mannerl *3. So far as question No' 1 is concerned, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue embedded in tlre said question has already been decided by this Court and governed by the ratio laid down in tsarkha Synthetics Ltd' Vs' Asst. CIT (2OO5) 197 CTR (Rai') 432' It has b…

CIT vs. LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA/339/2011HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…d In favouroftheassessee.Accordingly,thisappeaIis dismissed." 18. Rajasthan High Court had an occasion to deal with the submission of the Revenue predicated on Benami transactions in the case of Cammissioner of Income Tax Vs, AKJ Granites (F) Ltd. reported as 301 ITR 298 (Raj.)andtheargumentsweredea|twithinthefol|owing mannerl *3. So far as question No' 1 is concerned, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue embedded in tlre said question has already been decided by this Court and governed by the ratio laid down in tsarkha Synthetics Ltd' Vs' Asst. CIT (2OO5) 197 CTR (Rai') 432' It has b…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

Commissioner of Income Tax v. AKJ Granites P.Ltd. (301 ITR 298) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax