Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 131, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 250.

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd.?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd. (262 ITR 493), spanning 2012 to 2025.

262 ITR 493High Court2003#6613 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is not required to prove the source of source of funds when the genuineness of the transaction is otherwise established and the assessing officer has not brought on record any material to the contrary. The assessing officer cannot discard the evidence adduced by the assessee without proper enquiry.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd. · Section 68 · Section 142(1) · Section 143(2) · Section 143(3) · source of source · unexplained cash credit · genuineness of transaction · share application money · addition under section 68 · burden of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 250 Section 68 Section 80G(2)(a)

Issues it is cited on

source of source addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction unexplained cash credit section 142 section 68 previous year section 143(2)section 13 transfer section 143

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S. Shrish Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 5315/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

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

…trace any person. Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the source of source." P a g e | 12 DCIT Vs. M/s Shrish Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) To the same effect are the following decisions: • CIT v Antartica Investment (P) Ltd. 262 ITR 493 (Del) • CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd.: 283 ITR 190 (Del.) • CIT v. Iliac Investment (P) Ltd.: 287 ITR 135 (Del.) • CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd: 333 ITR 119 (Del.) • CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd: 361-ITR 220 (Del.) • CIT v. Victor Electodes Ltd.: 329 ITR 271 (Del.) • CIT v. Vacmet Packaging India (P) Ltd.: 367 ITR 217 (All.) • CIT v. A…

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr vs. M/S Goldstone Cements Ltd

ITA/8/2022HC Gauhati16 Dec 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For Respondent: Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate

Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

…. (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (4) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gom Industries Ltd., reported in (2007) 292 ITR 406. (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (5) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Antartica Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2003) 262 ITR 493. (High Court of Delhi) (6) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gaurav Bagaria, reported in (2023) 453 ITR 513. (High Court of Rajasthan) Page No.# 6/29 (7) Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2020) 17 SCC 311. (Apex Court) (8) Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. Orissa Cor…

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…share application money was received from bogus shareholders without bringing on record the money has moved from the assessee's hands to the shareholders. e. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under in the case of Antarctica Investment (P.) ltd. 262 ITR 493: “7. In the present case, as noticed above, the Tribunal’s finding, which is essentially factual, is based on cogent material highlighted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had even gone to the extent of examining the bank account of the two companies from where the cheques in question were issued and had found that there were numerous transactions of de…

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

…)  CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.: 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB)  Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. &Ors: 299 ITR 268 (Del.) affirmed in Lovely Export (P) Ltd.: 319 ITR (St.) 5  CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment Ltd: 194 Taxman 43 (Del.)  CIT v Antartica Investment (P) Ltd. 262 ITR 493 (Del)  PCIT vs Ami Industries India (P) Ltd: 424 ITR 219 (Bom.)  Orient Trading Co. Limited: 49 ITR 723 (Bom.)  CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. – [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay)  CIT v. Vacmet Packaging India (P) Ltd.: 367 ITR 217 (All.)  CIT v. Arunanada Textiles P. Ltd: 333 ITR 116 (Kar)  CIT v. Metachem Industries: 245 ITR 1…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1179/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 144Section 68

…did not condone the AO, failing to issue coercive process, and in this manner attempting incorrectly to shift the burden on the Assessee to establish the legitimacy of the transaction. In Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2002] 262 ITR 493 (Del) the Court was satisfied that no interference was justified since the Assessee had produced the Share Application Forms along with confirmation letters and copies of their Accounts, copies of their Bank Accounts of cheque payments and their Auditor's Report. The Assessing Officer's conclusion that the genuineness of the transaction had not b…

M/S. Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5955/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O Gh – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aatpa 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O GH – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AATPA 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018 Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Ashish Chaddha, CA Ms. Devina Sharma, Adv Revenue by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of t…

Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Krishna Sheet Processors P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4003/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 68

…draw adverse inference without rebutting the evidences furnished by the assessee. In our view, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly observed so. Further the Ld CIT(A) has also taken note of the decisions rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Antartica Investments P Ltd (2003)(262 ITR 493)(Delhi) and CIT Vs. Actual Investments Ltd (269 ITR 211)(Delhi), wherein the Court has decided not to interfere, since the assessee hs produced the share application forms along with confirmation letters, copies of their accounts, copies of bank accounts evidencing cheque payments, auditors report etc. 9. Accordingly the ld CIT(A) has come to t…

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

…It did not condone the AO, failing to issue coercive process, and in this manner attempting incorrectly to shift the burden on the assessed to establish the ligitimacy of the transaction. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 262 ITR 493 (Del) the Court was satisfied that no interference was justified since the assessed had produced the Share Application Forms along with confirmation letters and copies of their Accounts, copies of their Bank Accounts of cheque payments and their Auditor's Report. The Assessing Officer's conclusion that the genuineness of the transaction had not b…

ITO Ward 17 (4) vs. Vital Communication Ltd

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2448/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…reditworthiness of both the creditors as well as the genuineness of the transaction and therefore, no addition could be made under section 68 - Asstt, CIT vs Antarctica Investment (p) Ltd. (Del) 78 TTJ 257 Affirmed in CIT vs Antarctica Investment Pvt. Ltd. 262 ITR 493(Del) Achal Investment Ltd vs CIT 268 ITR 211 (Del). Moreover, following decisions lay down that addition of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the company- assessee as was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Limited 192 ITR 287 which was later on affirmed in CIT vs. Steller Investment Limited…

ITO Ward- 7 (4) vs. Sbs Properties & Finvest (P) Ltd

ITA 378/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. R.C. Rai, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 378/Del/2008 AY : - 2000-01 Income Tax Officer Ward-7(4), vs M/s. SBS Properties & Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 401/4V/3198, 4th Floor, Gali No. 1, New Delhi. Sangatrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. (Respondent) (Appellant) AY : - 2000-01 Income Tax Officer Ward-7(4), vs M/s. SBS Properties & Finvest Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. 401/1/XIV, Gali Sanghtarasha, Paharganj, New Delhi - 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri O.P. Meena, CIT (DR) Respond…

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Sbs Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2164/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. R.C. Rai, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Harshwardhan Gems P. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1337/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

Harshwardhan Gems Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1070/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

Kunj Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. A.C.I.T., Cir-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 239/CTK/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…ssary. Instead of doing so, after issuance of summons when these materials were produced before him, he thought that he is helpless and he passed the burden on the assessee to bring the shareholder before him”.' In case of CIT Vs Antartica Investment (P) Ltd 262 ITR 493 (Del), the facts were that the assessee had received Rs.1.345 crores as advance against share application money from 2 Private Limited Companies on 31.03.1992. The assessee had produced the confirmation letters, the copies of Accounts In their Books, the copies of memorandum and Articles of Association of both the companies, copies of Bank Accoun…

CIT vs. Titan Securities Ltd

ITA/263/2012HC Delhi28 Feb 2013

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 260ASection 68

…ITA 263/2012 Page 1 of 15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 18th December, 2012 % Date of Decision: 28th February 2013 + ITA 263/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus TITAN SECURITIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J. This is an appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act,…

CIT vs. Titan Securities Ltd

ITA-263/2012HC Delhi28 Feb 2013

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 260ASection 68

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/342/2011HC Delhi15 Feb 2012

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A

…s furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 433, CIT v Antartica Investment P. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 493 and CIT v Achal Investment Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211. To put it simply, in these cases the decision was based on the fundamental rule of law that evidence or material adduced by the assessee cannot be thrown out without any enquiry. The ratio does not extend beyond that. The boundaries of the ratio cannot be, and should not be, widened to incl…