Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169High Court2012#87 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. authority for?

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

658

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease · 342 ITR 169 · Section 68 · cash credit · share application money · identity genuineness creditworthiness · onus of proof · Assessing Officer inquiry · source of source · paper company · accommodation entry · Section 131

Also reported as

18 Taxmann.com 217

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 5(2)Section 147Section 143(3)Section 9Section 148Section 6Section 131

Issues it is cited on

paper companyshare capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorshare application moneyentry operatorlive linkaddition u/s 68addition under section 68accommodation entrysection 131genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jjf Casting Ltd (Formerly Known As Jpm Renewable Energy Ltd), Delhi

ITA 7278/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6639/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, CC- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6638/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Nikki Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6635/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6630/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6629/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6628/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6627/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6626/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6625/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6624/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6623/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6622/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…st in the share capital of the assessee group. The learned CIT DR further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee – Appellant, Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal so raised by the Revenue. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee – appellant furnished b…

Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3715/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 705, 7Th Floor, Manjusha Building, Circle-19(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecp3680L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th July, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-31, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application Seeking Adjournment Of The Appeal Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That Although The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On Various Dates, No One Was Appearing. Further, The Notices Sent By Rpad Were Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘Left.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Further, The Notice Was Directed To Be Served By The Revenue & The Departmental Notice Server Who Was Deputed To Serve The Dasti Summons Has Reported That The Premise Of The Assessee Was Closed & No One Was Residing There For Which The Notice Was Fixed At The Gate Of The Assessee Company. The Report Of The Notice Server Is Also Placed On Record. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 30Section 37(1)Section 68

…uineness and validity. In view of this, the onus automatically shifts to the assessee to establish the identity of the creditors their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. 8.3 In the case of CIT versus Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held that section 68 of the Act permitted the Assessing Officer to add credit appearing in the books of account of the assessee if latter offers no explanation regarding nature and source of credit or explanation offered is not satisfactory. 8.4 The reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi H…

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

…nue and since genuineness of transactions were not established, there was no question of shifting burden u/s.68 on revenue and that the addition of unsecured loans to income of assessee was justified. In the case of M/s. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 217), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that no addition u/s.68 can be made unless the AO verifies that there was a specific involvement of assessee company in the modus operandi followed by the entry providers and that the particulars of entry providers is wrong. Further in the case of M/s.NR Portfolios Pvt Ltd. (ITA No.134 of 2012), the…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Bmp Steels P Ltd, Thiruvallur

ITA 1981/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

…nue and since genuineness of transactions were not established, there was no question of shifting burden u/s.68 on revenue and that the addition of unsecured loans to income of assessee was justified. In the case of M/s. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 217), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that no addition u/s.68 can be made unless the AO verifies that there was a specific involvement of assessee company in the modus operandi followed by the entry providers and that the particulars of entry providers is wrong. Further in the case of M/s.NR Portfolios Pvt Ltd. (ITA No.134 of 2012), the…

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

ITA 1751/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

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

…nue and since genuineness of transactions were not established, there was no question of shifting burden u/s.68 on revenue and that the addition of unsecured loans to income of assessee was justified. In the case of M/s. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 217), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that no addition u/s.68 can be made unless the AO verifies that there was a specific involvement of assessee company in the modus operandi followed by the entry providers and that the particulars of entry providers is wrong. Further in the case of M/s.NR Portfolios Pvt Ltd. (ITA No.134 of 2012), the…

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

ITA 1750/CHNY/2017[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021

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

…nue and since genuineness of transactions were not established, there was no question of shifting burden u/s.68 on revenue and that the addition of unsecured loans to income of assessee was justified. In the case of M/s. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 217), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that no addition u/s.68 can be made unless the AO verifies that there was a specific involvement of assessee company in the modus operandi followed by the entry providers and that the particulars of entry providers is wrong. Further in the case of M/s.NR Portfolios Pvt Ltd. (ITA No.134 of 2012), the…

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

ITA 1749/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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

…nue and since genuineness of transactions were not established, there was no question of shifting burden u/s.68 on revenue and that the addition of unsecured loans to income of assessee was justified. In the case of M/s. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 217), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that no addition u/s.68 can be made unless the AO verifies that there was a specific involvement of assessee company in the modus operandi followed by the entry providers and that the particulars of entry providers is wrong. Further in the case of M/s.NR Portfolios Pvt Ltd. (ITA No.134 of 2012), the…

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

ITA 1748/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

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

…nue and since genuineness of transactions were not established, there was no question of shifting burden u/s.68 on revenue and that the addition of unsecured loans to income of assessee was justified. In the case of M/s. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 217), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that no addition u/s.68 can be made unless the AO verifies that there was a specific involvement of assessee company in the modus operandi followed by the entry providers and that the particulars of entry providers is wrong. Further in the case of M/s.NR Portfolios Pvt Ltd. (ITA No.134 of 2012), the…