Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 14A, Section 142(1).

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

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd.?

216 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. (367 ITR 306), spanning 2015 to 2026.

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 366,470 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 1961 Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 14A Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

paper company share application money genuineness of the transaction section 133(6)unexplained cash credit section 68 previous year section 143(2)company person total income document

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

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…d. The Ld. D.R. submitted that no objection was raised before A.O. regarding the issues raised in the present appeal. The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 258 and Navodya Castle Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 306 which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed original return of income on 20.10.2007. The A.O. issued notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on 25.03.2014 after recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The copy…

M/S. Sangyon Automotive Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, ITA Nos.2991 & 2992/Del/2015 are partly allowed and ITA

ITA 2993/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…v) CIT vs. ST. Francies Clay Décor Tiles (2016) 240 Taxman 168; & vi) CIT v. Promy Kuriakose (2016) 386 ITR 597 (Ker.) 16.1 He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258; ii) CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del); iii) Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom); iv) DRB Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 490 (Cal); v) Prem Castings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 189 (All); vi) CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 30 taxmann.com 292; vii) CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 18 tax…

M/S. Sangyon Automotive Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, ITA Nos.2991 & 2992/Del/2015 are partly allowed and ITA

ITA 2992/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

M/S. Sangyon Automotive Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, ITA Nos.2991 & 2992/Del/2015 are partly allowed and ITA

ITA 2991/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…a Engineering Ltd. Vs ACIT (2015) 379 ITR 244 (Ker.) xxv. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT (2016) 386 ITR 342 (Patna) xxvi. Baldev Raj Vs CIT (2010) Taxmann.com 335 (P&H) xxvii. CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del.) xxviii. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del.) xxix. Konark Structural Engineering (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 90 Taxmann.com 56 (Bom.) xxx. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del.) xxxi. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) xxxii. CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd. 40 Taxmann.com 458 (Del.) xxxiii. CIT Vs Frostair (P.) Ltd. 26 Taxmann.co…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

M/S. Sherawali Yarns Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2996/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Sherawali Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 14D, 14Th Floor, Hansalaya, Central Circle, 15, Barakhamba Road, Bhainsali Road, New Delhi. Meerut. Pan: Aaics3421L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava & Shri Suvinay K. Dash, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A), Meerut, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Investment In Shares. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 19Th September, 2005 Declaring Loss Of Rs.320/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & In Response To Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 20Th September, 2006 & Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 3Rd August, 2007, The Counsel Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…v) CIT vs. ST. Francies Clay Décor Tiles (2016) 240 Taxman 168; & vi) CIT v. Promy Kuriakose (2016) 386 ITR 597 (Ker.) 11.1 He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258; ii) CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del); iii) Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom); iv) DRB Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 490 (Cal); v) Prem Castings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 189 (All); vi) CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 30 taxmann.com 292; 10 vii) CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 18…

M/S. Roseberry Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2995/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Roseberry Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 14D, 14Th Floor, Hansalaya, Central Circle, 15, Barakhamba Road, Bhainsali Road, New Delhi. Meerut. Pan: Aabcr3485J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava & Shri Suvinay K. Dash, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A), Meerut, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Derives Income From Interest On Loans & Advances Granted By It As An Nbfc & Profit On Sale Of Mutual Funds. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 6Th November, 2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 8Th July, 2009. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 After Duly Recording The Reasons In Writing. In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Dated 23Rd October, 2009, The Assessee Submitted To Treat The Original Return As Return Filed In Compliance To Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 31St December, 2009 Determining The Total Income At Rs.73,510/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions By Disallowing Stt Debited To P&L Account, Income-Tax Debited, Disallowance U/S 14A & Preliminary Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 68

…v) CIT vs. ST. Francies Clay Décor Tiles (2016) 240 Taxman 168; & vi) CIT v. Promy Kuriakose (2016) 386 ITR 597 (Ker.) 11.1 He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258; ii) CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del); iii) Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom); iv) DRB Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 490 (Cal); v) Prem Castings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 189 (All); vi) CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 30 taxmann.com 292; vii) CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 18 tax…

Satish Singhal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result ground number one of the appeal of the assessee along with other grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4026/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisatish Singhal, Vs. Ito, 6, Patpar Road, Shivpuri, New Ward-11(1), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abbps5635D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 101Section 131Section 133Section 68

…all those creditors for examination along with the notice dated 8/3/2016. The assessee also did not reply this notice. Therefore the learned assessing officer applying the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Navodaya Castles private limited 367 ITR 306 made the addition of ₹ 26 lakhs under section 68 of the income tax act and determine the total income of the assessee at ₹ 32 20320/– against the returned income of ₹ 6 20320/–. 4. Assessee agreed with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of income tax appeals – 22, New Delhi. The learned…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…Taxman 66 (SC) (para 18), xxxv. CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 18), xxxvi. CIT v. Maithan International [2015] 375 ITR 123/231 Taxman 381/56 taxmann.com 283 (Cal.) (para 20), xxxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), 19 xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.)…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sohail Financials Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4867/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Sohail Financials Ltd, Ward-9(1), C-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs3643M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

…us hereinabove. 54. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Assessee has not discharged the onus Page 25 of 77 satisfactorily and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified and sustainable ” 2. CIT Vs Navodava Castle Pvt Ltd f20141 367 ITR 306 (Del) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court accepted that since 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…

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Mulpuri Foods and Feds Pvt. Ltd., Nuzividu

ITA 292/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.292 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) The Acit Vs. M/S Mulpuri Foods & Circle-3(1) Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vijayawada No.3-93, Ramannagudem Vattigudipadu Post Nuzvid [Pan : Aagcm2045J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR

Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.292 /Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) The ACIT Vs. M/s Mulpuri Foods and Circle-3(1) Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vijayawada No.3-93, Ramannagudem Vattigudipadu Post Nuzvid [PAN : AAGCM2045J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR प्र…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…and the book value of the assessee in books of account was negative. Our attention was further invited to page 6 and 15 of the assessment order. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 342 ITR 169(Del), 222 Taxmann 15 (Del), 367 ITR 306 (Del). Our attention was also invited to page 19 (para 4.9 of the assessment order) and further to page 26 (para 7), page 27 and page 31 (para 11) and the table mentioned in the impugned order. It was empathetically argued that additional evidence was filed before the learned CIT(A) which is violation of Rule 46A of the Rules as no opportunity…

Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5871/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Mr. Trilok Chand Acit Chaudhary, Central Circle 26, 39, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. 110030 Pan No. Aaepc0683P

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

…orts P. Ltd. vs. CIT 93 taxmann.com 490, judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Prem Casting P. Ltd. vs. CIT 88 taxmann.com 189, judgment of Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. MAF Academy P. Ltd. 361 ITR 258, CIT vs. Navodhya Castle P. Ltd. 367 ITR 306 and CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio P. Ltd. 263 CTR 456. Ld. DR also submitted that statement recorded u/s 132(4) could be the basis for making addition against the assessee and relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT 351 ITR 143, CIT vs. M.S. Aggarwal 93 taxmann.com 247 and PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Set…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sutlej Agro Products Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…nuineness of the transactions, as per section 68 of the IT Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions as mentioned in the written synopsis furnished by the ld. DR: (i). CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258. (ii). CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 306 (del) (iii). Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom) (iv). DRB Exports P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 93 taxmann.com 490 (v). Prem Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 88 taxmann.com 189(Alld) (vi). CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del) (vii). CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finleae (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169 (Del) (viii). CIT…

M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Society (Regd), Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2497/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Vs Addl. Cit, Society (Regd.), Nh-24, Near Range-2, Masuri Canal, Dasna Mauri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad-201302 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts4243G Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2012 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…below and reiterated the observation made by the AO at page no. 3 of the assessment order dated 21.12.2009. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2015-TIOL-314-SC-IT) " CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del.) 20 Bankey Bihari Educational Society " CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 258 (Del) " CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del.) " CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd. 40 Taxmann.com 458 (Del.) " CIT Vs N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 291…

Sukumar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 24(3), New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6074/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 68

…ew of the above facts, appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions with regard to addition made u/s 68 of Income Tax Act: 1. CIT Vs MAF Academy fP.) Ltd (361 ITR 258) 2. CIT Vs Navodava Castle Pvt Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del) 3. Navodava Castle Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (2015-TIQL-314-SC-IT) 4. Konark Structural Engineering (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT T20181 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bombay) 5. Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT f20171 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) 6. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292. 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407. 256 CTR 34) 7. CIT Vs Nova Promo…

Sanskriti Tradex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 24(3), New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 68

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…Taxman 66 (SC) (para 18), xxxv. CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 18), xxxvi. CIT v. Maithan International [2015] 375 ITR 123/231 Taxman 381/56 taxmann.com 283 (Cal.) (para 20), xxxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), 21 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhat…

M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 5476/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 253Section 5

…zed material and inquiries related thereto. The additions can in no manner be termed "arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material." 19. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del.) " Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 189 (All.) " CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd. 40 Taxmann.com 458 (Del.) " CIT Vs Frostair (P.) Ltd…