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.

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3715, 3716 & 3717/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Financial Services Pvt. Room No.673A, 6th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 113, 1st Floor, Maker M.K. Road, Chamber-V, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCM 2372F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Properties Pvt. Ltd., Room No.673A, 6th Floor, 113, 1st Floor,…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3715, 3716 & 3717/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Financial Services Pvt. Room No.673A, 6th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 113, 1st Floor, Maker M.K. Road, Chamber-V, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCM 2372F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Multiventure 3(2)(2), Properties Pvt. Ltd., Room No.673A, 6th Floor, 113, 1st Floor,…

ACIT, Central Circle, Bikaner vs. M/S. Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Bikaner

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

Section 131

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T. Vs. M/s Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. PAN No. AARFM 0027 E Revenue by Shri A.S. Yadav, JCIT DR Assessee by Shri P.C. Parwal, CA Date of Hearing 05.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 29/08/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.…

M/S Advent Commodities Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Ward-4(3) vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

…ion u/s 68 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC). We find that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Novo Promoters and Finelease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 (Del) vehemently relied upon by the ld. DR before us, is not 5 I.T.A. No. 522/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Advent Commodities Pvt. Ltd. applicable in the instant case, as in the facts before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the notices u/s 133(6) have not been duly complied with. Hence the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 6520/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 6521/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 1102/1103, Express Zone Vs. Old CGO Building A Wing, Patel Vatika Annexe, 8th Floor Off Western Express M.K. Road Highway, Malad-East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 097. PAN : ASRPR4293B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 6960/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sneha Rajesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 2202 A, Lakshchandi Vs. Old CGO B…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 6520/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 6521/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 1102/1103, Express Zone Vs. Old CGO Building A Wing, Patel Vatika Annexe, 8th Floor Off Western Express M.K. Road Highway, Malad-East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 097. PAN : ASRPR4293B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 6960/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sneha Rajesh Ruia DCIT, CC-2(2) 2202 A, Lakshchandi Vs. Old CGO B…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 625/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Moongipa Development बिधम/ Dcit Central Range-7(3) Room No.655, 6Th Floor & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. 203/204 Raigad Darshan, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Jp Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, 400020. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm1616E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.625/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. Ita Nos. 625 & 626/M/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. AR)
Section 127Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

…n 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…

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Sunstar Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 816/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…7374/Del/2017 ITA No.7567/Del/2017 capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 35. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, she submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 36. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ultr…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Competent Infoways Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…7374/Del/2017 ITA No.7567/Del/2017 capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 35. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, she submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 36. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ultr…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 124/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…7374/Del/2017 ITA No.7567/Del/2017 capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 35. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, she submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 36. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ultr…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Aqua Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 122/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…7374/Del/2017 ITA No.7567/Del/2017 capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 35. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, she submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 36. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ultr…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd., Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 119/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…7374/Del/2017 ITA No.7567/Del/2017 capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 35. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, she submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 36. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ultr…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 115/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…7374/Del/2017 ITA No.7567/Del/2017 capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 35. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, she submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 36. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ultr…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 111/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

…7374/Del/2017 ITA No.7567/Del/2017 capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 35. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, she submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in CO Nos.73 to 76, 86 & 87, 79 to 82, 88, 90, 71, 72 & 70, 84 &85/Del/2018 garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 36. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ultr…

Sh. Kamal Galani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assesee for Asst

ITA 138/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 144Section 144oSection 147

…, 1872 also, it need to be held at this stage that the information/details not furnished were unfavorable to the assesse and that the source of the money deposited in the IISBC account is undisclosed and sourcedfrom India. Nova Promoters and Fin/ease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del), highlighting the legal effect of section 68 of the Act, the Division Bench has observed in para 32 that The tribunal also erred in law in holding Assessing Officer ought to have proved that the monies emanated from the coffers of the assesse company and came back as share capital. Section 68 permits the Assessing Officer to add the credit…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kns Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (M/S. Kms Realtors Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1286/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-1286/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO vs KNS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Ward 5(3), (M/s KMS Realtors P. Ltd.) New Delhi. 517-A, Narrain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. PAN No. AADCK4476G Revenue by Shri C.P. Singh, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Date of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement 24 .08.2020 ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 9/12/2013 in Appeal No. 139/2013- 14, passed by th…

M/S. Gayatri Seva Sansthan, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Gayatri Seva Sansthan, Vs Addl. Cit, 155, G.T. Road, Range-1, Panchwati, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaatg1960H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)

…he ld.CIT(A), without considering the contemporaneous documents filed before him proceeded to confirm the addition made by the AO by incorrectly relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169 and CIT vs. Empire Builtech Pvt. Ltd., 366 ITR 110 although the facts of those cases were completely distinguishable and different from the facts of the instant case. He accordingly submitted that since the assessee has discharged the initial onus cast on it by proving the identity and credit worthiness of M/s Baldev Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and the g…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…, 1872 also, it need to be held at this stage that the information/details not furnished were unfavorable to the assesse and that the source of the money deposited in the HSBC account is undisclosed and sourced from India. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del), highlighting the legal effect of section 68 of the Act, the Division Bench has observed in para 32 that “ The tribunal also erred in law in holding Assessing Officer ought to have proved that the monies emanated from the coffers of the assesse company and came back as share capital. Section 68 permits the Assessing Officer to add the credi…

Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8703/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

Section 143Section 148Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [G BENCH] New Delhi BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi PAN :- ABVPK1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date of Order 29.06.2020 Present for Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present for Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental representative O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M.: 01. ITA number 8703…

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 631/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR
Section 68

…n 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…