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

Issues it is cited on

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2927/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccd4642C Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, New Delhi Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd4642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…ss of the above two companies and genuineness of the transaction, therefore, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Titan Securities Ltd. in ITA No.263/2012 and in CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., reported in 342 ITR 169, the AO made an addition of Rs.3,41,40,000/- to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. 6. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the investor companies are the group companies and have common directors or their family members. The investing companies have been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Th…

M/S. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2422/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccd4642C Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, New Delhi Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd4642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…ss of the above two companies and genuineness of the transaction, therefore, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Titan Securities Ltd. in ITA No.263/2012 and in CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., reported in 342 ITR 169, the AO made an addition of Rs.3,41,40,000/- to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. 6. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the investor companies are the group companies and have common directors or their family members. The investing companies have been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5204/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 103, Pratap Bhawan, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Near Indian Express Building, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact4445P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 31St March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Sheet Metal Components & Tools & Dies. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2011 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Said Return Was Revised On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,61,68,075/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao, On Perusal Of The Balance Sheet Filed By The Assessee, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Issued 14,72,000 Equity Shares At A Premium Of Rs.115. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Issued Shares To The Following Persons/Parties:-

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Mrs Aashna Paul, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)

…0 DRB Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 490 (Calcutta) 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) 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 [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi)/[2014] 222 Taxman 157 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 264 CTR 258 (Delhi) 16 CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd (366 ITR 110) 17. CIT Vs Foc…