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

ITA 1747/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

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 1746/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

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. Bmp Steels P Ltd, Thiruvallur

ITA 1745/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. Bmp Steels P Ltd, Thiruvallur

ITA 1744/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

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, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Luxman Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R Co No.93/Del/2018 (Ita No.817/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd November, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. Co No.93/Del/2018 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…rk Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom); 18 CO No.93/Del/2018 (iv) Prem Castings (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 88 taxmann.com 189; (v) CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 350 ITR 407; (vi) CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd.,342 ITR 169; (vii) CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P) Ltd., 40 taxmann.com 458 (Del); (viii) CIT vs. NR Portfolio (P) Ltd., 29 taxmann.com 291 (Del); and (ix) CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd., 306 ITR 110 (Del). 20. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has incorrectly deleted the addition made by the AO holding that the assessee has proved the identity and credit…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Noida

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

ITA 1397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 1397/Del/2016 [A.Y 2006-07]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the onus of the assessee is discharged without appreciating the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court given in case of CIT v. Nova Promoters (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that by merely filing confirmations, ITRs etc. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction are not established and the evidences adduced by the assessee has to be examined not superficially but in depth and having regard to the test of human probabilities and normal course of human cond…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…he documentation but genuineness and credit worthiness, identity are deeper and obtrusive. It was held that it would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the 94 (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 123 of 150 transactions and credit worthiness of the creditors stands discharged in all cases if payment is made through banking channels. Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon the facts of each case, it depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each other, the ma…

Ramesh Chand Investment & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. ACIT, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. PAN:AACCR3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st March,2013 of the CIT(A)-18, New…

Adhoi Vyapar Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7308/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7308/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7309/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7310/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7311/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Adhoi Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Ito-9(1)(1), R.No. 205, 2Nd Floor, A-502, 234, Manish Garden Chs, बिाम/ Vs. 4 Bunglow, Andheri(W), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aahca-6296-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2009- 10 To 2012-13 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…after considering the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision titled as Pr.CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [412 ITR 161]. 6.7 The Ld. DR has cited the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 217) which is factually distinguishable since in that case, the investors made an admission that they were accommodation entry providers. No such admission has been made by the investors in the present case. The case law of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Royal Rich Developers (I) Ltd. V/s Pr. CIT (108 Taxmann.com 382) is a case where the inve…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…Trade & Investment Ltd Vs CIT (2016- TIOL-207-SC-IT (Supreme Court) 11. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292, 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407, 256 CTR 34) 12. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169. 252 CTR 187) 19 Shri Mahendra H. Shah 13. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P.) Ltd (40 taxmann.com 458, 220 Taxman (165) 14. CIT vs. Frostair (P.) Ltd. (26 taxmann.com 11, 210 Taxman 221) 15. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/(2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi/(2013) 263 CTR 456 (Delhi). 16. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) L…

M/S Everfine Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3129/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3129/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Everfine Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. Dy. CIT – Central Circle -7(3) Shop No. 8, Botawala Building Aayakar Bhavan 82/86 Raghavji Road, Gowalia Tank Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400036 PAN: AACCE3674P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap Date of Hearing : 18.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is f…

Jeevan Polymers (P) Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 93/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sri A. V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Sri R. Mujumdar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…rt held that where assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) where Honble Delhi High Court held that: amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P,) Ltd (366 ITR 110) where Hon 'ble Delhi High Court held that u/ s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to me-el…

M/S Swargamrut Dairy Prv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6839/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 11(2)(2) 113, 1St Chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 Pan: Aalcs3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department By : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Menon
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT – 11(2)(2) 113, 1st chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 PAN: AALCS3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department by : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Incom…

M/S Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 630/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Bini Builders P. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-3447-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 163/2017-18 Dated 17/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal and Co. V/s DCIT (97 TTJ 377). The case laws being relied upon by the assessee were held to be distinguishable rather reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 to confirm the additions. Finally, the additions were confirmed by observing as under: - 7.8 The Learned Counsel also alleged that the AO made the addition on the basis of suspicion and not evidences. This also is not correct as the AO had brought in enough evidences both direct and corroborative to come to the conclusion that the share capital a…

M/S Moongipa Development & Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 627/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.627/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-1616-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 165/2017-18 Dated 05/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal and Co. V/s DCIT (97 TTJ 377). The case laws being relied upon by the assessee were held to be distinguishable rather reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 to confirm the additions. Finally, the additions were confirmed by observing as under: - 7.8 The Learned Counsel also alleged that the AO made the addition on the basis of suspicion and not evidences. This also is not correct as the AO had brought in enough evidences both direct and corroborative to come to the conclusion that the share capital a…

Smt. Shweta Goyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/JPR/2020[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2010-12
For Appellant: Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (ACIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 202/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 cuke Smt. Shweta Goyal The ITO, Vs. W/o Sh. Kuldeep Goyal Ward-5(2), B-279, Janta Colony, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AINPG 7191 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Mo…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Arizona Venutres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1428/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…anner deemed fit. The OFCD Holder shall have not right to claim or question anything in this regard. In this regard it is important to keep in mind that even the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held, in numerous decisions, one of them being Nova Promoters (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del.) and another being C.IT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 12. On Page 9 of ITA 218/2012 it has been stated that what is apparent be considered real until it can be shown that there are reasons to believe : the apparent is not real. Proof is required and the assessing authorities are rejected to put blinkers while looking at documents befor…

Kasper Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-14(2), New Delhi

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…Others 148 (SC) [(2012) 206 taxman 254 • Anand Woolen Mills Pvt Ltd V (Delhi)] CIT 174 ITR 477 (Delhi) • CIT V Gangeshwari • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd Metals P. Ltd (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) • ITO V Neelkanth Finbuild • Nova Promoters &Finlease 56 • (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169 (Del)) ITO V NC Cables ITA No. • CIT V Nipun Builders & 4122/Del/2009 (ITAT Developers [2013] 350 ITR Delhi) • 407 (Del) CIT V Oasis Hospitalities • CIT V N.R. Portfolio PVt Ltd P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR (ITA No. 1018 & 1019 of 119 (Delhi)] • 2011) ITO V Rakam Money • Mittal Belting and Machinery Matters P Ltd Stors V CIT 253 ITR 341 2821/Del/2011 •…

ITO Ward - 14(2), New Delhi vs. Kasper Information Technology Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…Others 148 (SC) [(2012) 206 taxman 254 • Anand Woolen Mills Pvt Ltd V (Delhi)] CIT 174 ITR 477 (Delhi) • CIT V Gangeshwari • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd Metals P. Ltd (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) • ITO V Neelkanth Finbuild • Nova Promoters &Finlease 56 • (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169 (Del)) ITO V NC Cables ITA No. • CIT V Nipun Builders & 4122/Del/2009 (ITAT Developers [2013] 350 ITR Delhi) • 407 (Del) CIT V Oasis Hospitalities • CIT V N.R. Portfolio PVt Ltd P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR (ITA No. 1018 & 1019 of 119 (Delhi)] • 2011) ITO V Rakam Money • Mittal Belting and Machinery Matters P Ltd Stors V CIT 253 ITR 341 2821/Del/2011 •…

ITO Ward - 13(3), New Delhi vs. Jingle Bells Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5527/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…Others 148 (SC) [(2012) 206 taxman 254 • Anand Woolen Mills Pvt Ltd V (Delhi)] CIT 174 ITR 477 (Delhi) • CIT V Gangeshwari • CIT V Sophia Finance Ltd Metals P. Ltd (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) • ITO V Neelkanth Finbuild • Nova Promoters &Finlease 56 • (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169 (Del)) ITO V NC Cables ITA No. • CIT V Nipun Builders & 4122/Del/2009 (ITAT Developers [2013] 350 ITR Delhi) • 407 (Del) CIT V Oasis Hospitalities • CIT V N.R. Portfolio PVt Ltd P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR (ITA No. 1018 & 1019 of 119 (Delhi)] • 2011) ITO V Rakam Money • Mittal Belting and Machinery Matters P Ltd Stors V CIT 253 ITR 341 2821/Del/2011 •…