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

367 ITR 306High Court2014#417 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

For an addition under Section 68 relating to share application money or unsecured loans, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiries and rebut the evidence provided by the assessee regarding identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness; additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or without investigation if the assessee has discharged its initial onus.

216

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Navodaya Castles · Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles · Section 68 · Section 131 · Section 133(6) · Section 143(3) · share application money · unexplained cash credit · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of investors · onus of proof · Assessing Officer enquiries

Also reported as

226 Taxmann 190

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 143(3)Section 131Section 14ASection 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

paper companyshare application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 133(6)unexplained cash creditsection 68previous yearsection 143(2)companypersontotal incomedocument

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

ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4380/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Ward- 16 (1) Vs C-16, 101 First Floor, New Delhi Gurunanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110092 Pan No.Aahcm1300K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)Section 68

…gnoring the ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the issue in the cases of CIT vs. N.R. portfolio (P) Ltd. (2014) 2 1TR-OL-68, CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers (P) Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 407 and CIT vs. Navodaya castles Pvt Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 306 on application of section 68 of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 6,18,650/-u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the direct nexus between business income and huge interest exp…

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Patna vs. Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt Ltd, Patna

ITA 110/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…only letter written by the ld. Assessing Officer is date 06.01.2016 requesting the explanation of the assessee by 25.01.2016 and he passed the assessment order in the month of March, 2016. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT – vs.- Navodha Cashle [367 ITR 306] has considered a large number of decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR page 540. According to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, basically there are two sets of judgments. In one set of case, the assessee produced necessary documents/evidence to show and establish t…

M/S. Govind Stone Private Limited, Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer -5(4), Banda

ITA 258/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. Agrawal, Adv. &VinayGoel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh Sr.D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.258/Alld./2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Govind Stone Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 5(4), 43, 1st Floor, v. Banda, U.P. MohallaMishrana Hamirpur, Distt- Hamirpur, U.P. 210301. PAN:AADCG4838L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri. R. S. Agrawal, Adv. &VinayGoel, C.A. Respondent by: Shri A.K. Singh Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 15.11. 2022 Date of pronouncement: 19.12.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assess…

Singal Pipe Fittings Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 13(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1762/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…cribed the shares of the assessee. The ld. First Appellate Authority after making reference to a large number of decisions including CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2014) 2 ITR 68 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Delhi), and held that the assessee is engaged in providing of bogus entry system. It has not possessed any real financial worth. All the share applicants have received same kind of share capital as well as share premium that has been infused in the assessee. In other words, according to the ld. CIT(A) it is a circulated transaction. The ld. Firs…

M/S. Kopran Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -7(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 133Section 143Section 68

…sult ground no. (1) of Revenue is allowed." (emphasis added) Kopran Limited; A.Y. 14–15 10.9. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. dated 25/08/2014 in [(2014) 367 ITR 306 (Delhi)], in which SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed (2015) 230 Taxman 268 (SC)], where it has been held that: 14. Certificate of incorporation, PAN etc. are relevant for purchase of identification, but have their limitation when there is evidence and material to show that the subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor. It i…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, BMC Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAKFT 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARs Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar date…

West India Autoequip Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1602/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sanathal Ward-4(1)(3), Overbridge, Sarkhej Bavla Vs Ahmedabad-380015 Highway, Sarkhej, (Respondent) Ahmedabad-382210 Pan: Aaacw9211E (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 27Section 40A(2)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2015-16 West India Autoequip Pvt. The ITO, Ltd., Before Sanathal Ward-4(1)(3), Overbridge, Sarkhej Bavla Vs Ahmedabad-380015 Highway, Sarkhej, (Respondent) Ahmedabad-382210 PAN: AAACW9211E (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 01-11-2022 Date of pronouncement : 04-11-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal…

DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. P & P Highrise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 493/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…lanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books, or (d) the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 306 has considered a large number of decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). According to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court basically there are two sets of judgments. In one set of case, the assessee produced necessary documents/evidence to show and establish identity of the sha…

Poddar Finin Cosultancy Pvt.Ltd, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Panvel

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1007/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1007/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143Section 68

…creditors as well. 7. Amtrac Automobiles India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITA No.2920/Del/09) - Neither before AO nor before CIT(A), assessee could make share applicants available. Identity not established. Appeal dismissed. 8. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd ([20141 367 ITR 306 (Del)) - It was accepted that the assessee was unable to produce the directors and the principal officers of the six shareholder companies and also that as per the information and details collected by the Assessing Officer from the concerned bank, the Assessing Officer had observed that there were genuine concerns about identity, creditworthiness…

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Uttarpradesh vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…(Delhi)/[2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi) 3. ITO vs. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.4778/Del/2013) 4. Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT[2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. (361 ITR 258) 6. CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) 8. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi)/[2014] 222 Taxman 157 (Delhi) (MAG)/[2014] 264 CTR 258 (Delhi) 1. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the material placed on record before u…

M/S. Aastha Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xix, Kolkata

ITA 123/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 263Section 68

…lanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books, or (d) the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 306 has considered a large number of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). According to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court basically there are two sets of judgments. In one set of case, the assessee produced necessary documents/evidence to show and establish identity of the sha…

ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Lalithaa Jewellary Mart Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is party

ITA 274/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…the assessee introduced its unaccounted income in the form of share application money/share premium. 2.4 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Navodaya Castle (P) Ltd. reported as (2014) 367 ITR 306, that certificate of incorporation, PAN etc., were not sufficient for the purpose of identification of subscriber company, when there was material to show that subscriber was a accommodation entry giver and not a genuine investor was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 56 taxmann.corn 18 (SC) and since the facts are identical in the ass…

Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is party

ITA 3160/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…the assessee introduced its unaccounted income in the form of share application money/share premium. 2.4 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Navodaya Castle (P) Ltd. reported as (2014) 367 ITR 306, that certificate of incorporation, PAN etc., were not sufficient for the purpose of identification of subscriber company, when there was material to show that subscriber was a accommodation entry giver and not a genuine investor was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 56 taxmann.corn 18 (SC) and since the facts are identical in the ass…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9158/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.9153, 9154, 9155, 9156, 9157 & 9158/Del./2019 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, 149A, 1st Floor, Baba House, Kilokari, Opp. vs., Central Circle-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 014 New Delhi. PAN AAFCR1764E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. & Shri Shantanu Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.9153, 9154, 9155, 9156, 9157 & 9158/Del./2019 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, 149A, 1st Floor, Baba House, Kilokari, Opp. vs., Central Circle-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 014 New Delhi. PAN AAFCR1764E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. & Shri Shantanu Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9156/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.9153, 9154, 9155, 9156, 9157 & 9158/Del./2019 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, 149A, 1st Floor, Baba House, Kilokari, Opp. vs., Central Circle-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 014 New Delhi. PAN AAFCR1764E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. & Shri Shantanu Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9155/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.9153, 9154, 9155, 9156, 9157 & 9158/Del./2019 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, 149A, 1st Floor, Baba House, Kilokari, Opp. vs., Central Circle-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 014 New Delhi. PAN AAFCR1764E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. & Shri Shantanu Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9154/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.9153, 9154, 9155, 9156, 9157 & 9158/Del./2019 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, 149A, 1st Floor, Baba House, Kilokari, Opp. vs., Central Circle-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 014 New Delhi. PAN AAFCR1764E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. & Shri Shantanu Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9153/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.9153, 9154, 9155, 9156, 9157 & 9158/Del./2019 Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, 149A, 1st Floor, Baba House, Kilokari, Opp. vs., Central Circle-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 014 New Delhi. PAN AAFCR1764E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. & Shri Shantanu Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

ACIT CC-3(2), Chennai vs. Suryadev Alloys & Power P Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1982/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR
Section 113Section 153BSection 68

…question of reopening of assessment in the hands of the non-existent investors does not arise. 2.5 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the in the case of M/s Navodaya Castle ( P) Ltd. reported as (2014) 367 ITR 306, that certificate of incorporation, PAN, etc., were not sufficient for the purpose of identification of subscriber company, when there was material to show that subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC) and since the facts are identical in the assessee’s case…