Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Surya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ng Officer in his order are the entry operators and therefore the Ld. CIT (A) has erroneously referred to them as general statements. He relied upon the several decisions as under i. Navodaya Castles private limited versus CIT 2015 – TIOL – 314 –. S. C – IT & 367 ITR 306 (2014) (DEL) ii. CIT versus M, A. F Academy private limited 361 ITR 258 (2014) (Delhi) iii. Rick Lunsford trade and investment limited versus CIT 2016 – TIOL – 207 -SC – IT and 385 ITR 399 (2016) (Kolkata) iv. CIT versus Nipun builders and developers private limited (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Delhi) v. CIT versus Nova promoters and Finlay‟s private lim…

Shri Hazi Mohd. Irfan, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.711/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Shri Hazi Mohd. Irfan, The Income Tax Officer, s/o. Raham Ilahi, H.No.22, vs. Ward-1(3), Prem Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. Ghaziabad. PAN AAKPI 1170P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anoop Sharma, Advocate & Shri S. Parashar, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2017 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 30…

M/S. Behl Promoters & Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2009-10 Behl Promoters & Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 21, B-29, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Behl Promoters & Realtors Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Central Circle- 21, B-29, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAMPB3279L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Department by : Shri R. C. Danday, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 30-08-2017 Date of pronouncement : 30-10-2017 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.03.2014 of CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi re…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Lc Fashion Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…made to the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of NR Portfolio Private Limited and the decision of the Apex Court wherein SLP by the assessee against the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Navodaya Castles [2014] 367 ITR 306 was dismissed in Navodaya Castle P.Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC) upholding the ruling of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that Certificate of Incorporation PAN etc. are not sufficient for the purpose Page 9 of 11 I.T.A .No.-4450/Del/2015 of identification of subscriber company when there was material to show that the subscriber was a…

M/S Goli Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Goli Finance Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, Wz-386, Ram Chowk, Company Circle-12(1), Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi-1100 45 (Pan: Aaacg1962A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05 .05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 :07.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Passed The Order Arbitrarily & Without Least Verification & Appreciating Of Facts. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Addition Of Rs.16,11,500 Made In Respect Of Unexplained Cash Credit Under Sec. 68 Of The Act Be Deleted.

…t identical amount was deposited in the accounts of share application before issuance of cheques by them to the assessee. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] - 291 ITR 278 (SC); ii) CIT Vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd.; 367 ITR 306- (Del.); & iii) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech P. Ltd. (2014) -366 ITR 110 (Del.). 4.3 He further submitted that the ITAT being a last facts finding authority can always refer the matter to the Assessing Officer to conduct further inquiry if it is so required. 5. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, material available on record an…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gross Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Gross Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Ward-12(2), Room No.337, 4Th Floor, Vardhman Plaza, Vs. C. R. Building, Corner, New Delhi Inder Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0436B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…efore us containing the Assessment order, Form No. 35, copy of remand report and copy of CIT(A)’s order. He further reiterated his submission made before ld CIT(A). he further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Novadaya Castles Ltd.[367 ITR 306] as well as CIT V Empire Buildtech P Limited [ 366 ITR 110]. Regarding admissions of additional evidence he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd. 6. The ld AR also submitted a paper book containing 161 pages. The main contention of the ld AR was that admission of additional evidences hav…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Manish Agarwal, New Delhi

In the result ground NO. 7 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Manish Agarwal, Central Circle-11, Room No.364, K-2/11, Vs. E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Model Town, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaepa0068J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…fficer has made the addition after detailed enquiry such as examination of the returns of income of the donor as well as the bank account of the donor. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Novadaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. 367 ITR 306. He further submitted that before the Assessing Officer the genuineness of the transaction was not proved and therefore the addition is rightly made. He further stated that ld Assessing Officer has in detail raised several contentions and none of them were dealt with by the ld CIT (A) and therefore the order of the ld CIT(A) may be reversed. Agai…

G.S. Control, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

…R Shri Vasanthan on the other hand relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the reopening is valid. He relied on the proposition of law laid down in the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. 367 ITR 306 and submitted that this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. He also relied on the case reported in 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC) (2015). He pointed out that the Tribunal, in the assessee’s own case, for the 3 20x5 G.S. Control vs. ACIT asstt. year 2006-07, in ITA No. 1520/Del/2010, has upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which was in favour o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2003-04 Acit, Vs. Gulshan International (P) Ltd., Circle-12(1), B-20/1, Wazirpur International New Delhi. Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcg1201H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Satyen Sethi & A. Pandu, Adv. Department By: Shri T. Vasudevan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 22:04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order Raising The Issue As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.40,02,780 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Sec. 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credits.

…me. He submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Learned AR having distinguishable facts are not helpful to the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No. 320/2012 – decision dated 25.8.2014 (367 ITR 306 – Del ) – upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court – reported in (2015) – 230 Taxman 268 (S.C). 8. The Learned AR rejoined with the submission that the decision in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd., (supra) replied upon by the Learned Senior DR is not helpful to the Revenue as in that case the ITAT had decided the issue of validity of ad…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Himalaya Finlease (P) Ltd, Ward-12(4), 17, 3Rd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aabch2336L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ich shares were purchased. Furthermore such shares were not out of books of the company but in the books of account. Against this the ld DR relied on the order of the AO and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. CIT v Navodaya Castles P Ltd. 367 ITR 306. Ld AR relied on the order of CIT (A) and also submitted that sales of shares is already shown as income in the books of accounts of the assessee. Further ld AO has not shown anything how these sales shown by the assessee is unexplained cash credit. Page 5 of 8 Page 6 of 8 11. We have carefully considered the rival contention. The ld CIT(A) has…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hira Realotors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Hira Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Ward-12(4), D-26, Defense Colony, Room No.331, Vs. New Delhi, C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabch6352E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. G.C.Srivastava, Adv Sh. Anubhav Jain, Adv Revenue By Sh.T.Vasanthan, Sr. Dr

…sitor has also received the cash from M/s. Godavari Build well Pvt. Ltd and therefore it does not prove genuineness of the transaction. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 306 (Del) which has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 230 Taxmann 268. Ii. It was also his contention that when notices issued u/s 133(6) of the act remained un-responded and when it is submitted that it belongs to a group of the well known builder such as Emaar MGF, transaction should have been initiated not in cash but through the banking cha…

M/S. Brv Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2005-06 Brv Developers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 14(4) (Earlier Known As Prominent New Delhi Insurance Brokers P.Ltd.) C 52, Vivek Vihar Delhi 110 095 Pan: Aadcp 3196 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…er of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has failed to prove not only the credit worthiness but also the genuineness of the transaction. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Navodaya Castle P.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 367 ITR 306 (Del) and submitted that the S.L.P. filed by the assessee against this judgement was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.1.2015. 3 A.Y. 2005-06 BRV Developers P.Ltd. 7. In reply the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no record of fact made by the A.O. in the reasons recorded that the above entry is an accommodation entry…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Green Valley Plywood Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3688/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2004-05)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-3688/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05) DCIT vs Green Valley Plywood Ltd. Circle 12(1) 2941/3, Chuna Mandi New Delhi Paharganj New Delhi (APPELLANT) AAACG0323P (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, CA Respondent by Sh.T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2015 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 26/03/2013 passed by CIT(A) XV, New Delhi for Assessment Ye…