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.

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 930/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…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…

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 929/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…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…

M/S. Fusion Conbuild (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle – 27 Vs Fusion Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No. Aabcf5804F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Fusion Conbuild (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O. M/S.Rra Taxindia, Central Circle-18 D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan No. Aaccd3537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle – 27 Vs Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. New Delhi Ltd. H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No. Aaecm6235C (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.175/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit H-123, Sector-63, Noida Central Circle -27, Pan No. Aaecm6235C New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs Duxton Hills Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 27, New Delhi , H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No.Aaccd3537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Duxton Hills Builders (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit

Section 131Section 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fusion Conbuild Pvt. Ltd., Noida

The appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1396/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle – 27 Vs Fusion Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No. Aabcf5804F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Fusion Conbuild (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O. M/S.Rra Taxindia, Central Circle-18 D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan No. Aaccd3537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle – 27 Vs Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. New Delhi Ltd. H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No. Aaecm6235C (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.175/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit H-123, Sector-63, Noida Central Circle -27, Pan No. Aaecm6235C New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs Duxton Hills Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 27, New Delhi , H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No.Aaccd3537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Duxton Hills Builders (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit

Section 131Section 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…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 715/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…re the income was taxable under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of mon…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 713/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…re the income was taxable under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of mon…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 712/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…re the income was taxable under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of mon…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 707/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…re the income was taxable under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of mon…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 706/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…re the income was taxable under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of mon…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 709/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…re the income was taxable under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of mon…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ny Dox Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4065/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT, Vs. M/s. NY Dox Services Ltd., Central Circle-19, 506, Hemkunt Tower, 98, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACN9378D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Respondent by None Date of hearing 14.01.2020 Date of pronouncement 21.01.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 30/04/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Par Excellence Leasing & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 68

…r consideration. The reliance in this Page 2 of 8 ITA No.- 2802/Del/2017. M/s Par Excellence Leasing & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. regard is place on the jurisdictional high court Decisions in the cases of M/s Nova Promoters & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., reported at 342 ITR 169, N.R. Portfolio vs Ltd reported at 264 CTR 258., Nipun Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported at 350 ITR 407.” (C) The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide impugned appellate order dated 13.02.2017 deleted the aforesaid addition. The relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 13.02.2017…

Smt. Swaroopma Tripathi, Faizabad vs. Income Tax Officer-II, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 593/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Swaroopma Tripathi V. Ito-Ii 820, Awas Vikas Colony Faizabad Amaniganj Faizabad Tan/Pan:Aglpt9805D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 01 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 01 2020 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 22/8/2019 For Assessment Year 2010- 11, Taking The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.r
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Swaroopma Tripathi v. ITO-II 820, Awas Vikas Colony Faizabad Amaniganj Faizabad TAN/PAN:AGLPT9805D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.r. Date of hearing: 15 01 2020 Date of pronouncement: 15 01 2020 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow, dated 22/8/2019 for assessment year 2010- 11, taking the following grounds: 1. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" was not justified in dismissing the ap…

M/S. Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ndings of the CIT(Appeals) were upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court, the Revenue placed strong reliance on the decision of another coordinate Bench of the same Court in the" case of CIT Vs Novo Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169). The High Court however held that the aforesaid judgment was distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The Court observed that in that judgment the Assessing Officer had brought on record enough corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had routed unaccounted monies into its books through medium of share subscription. The share…

ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

…R 407):- where Hori'ble High Court 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. 3. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (D) Ltd.(342 ITR 169):- Wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry provider in garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 4. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (D) Ltd. (220 taxman 165):- Where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where in order to ascertain genuineness of asse…

M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

…R 407):- where Hori'ble High Court 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. 3. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (D) Ltd.(342 ITR 169):- Wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry provider in garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 4. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (D) Ltd. (220 taxman 165):- Where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where in order to ascertain genuineness of asse…

ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abacus Real Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 14(1)(1), Room No. 431, Abacus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 101, Kalpatru Synergy, Opp. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Grand Hyaatsantacruz East, Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Aagca4865L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT- DR &
Section 143(3)Section 68

…Tribunal failed to keep in mind these aspects of the matter and has chosen to dispose of the appeal on the limited question of the identity of the share holders. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease P. Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 pointed out the circumstances in which the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lovely Export (supra) can be applied and the circumstances where the ratio cannot be applied.” In Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that : “11. The Revenue is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and has file…

Sd Polyfilms Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4034/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

…trongly relied upon the following judgments. (i) NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 339 (Del.) (ii) Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd., 226 taxmann 190 (iii) CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd., 228 taxmann 88 (iv) CIT v/s. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 342 ITR 169 (v) Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 350 ITR 407 (Del) (vi) CIT vs. MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 258 13. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material and the findings given in the impugned orders including the validity of reopening u/s.147. On the jurisdictional issue, the main plank of assessee’s objection…

Shri Yathartha Vashishth, Faridabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3870/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 194CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3870/DEL/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Yathartha Vashishth, vs. Dy. CIT, Prop. M/s. Yatharth Circle-63(1), Constructions, New Delhi. 416, Sector 21B, Faridabad. TAN/PAN: AEHPV 1649H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 19 09 2019 Date of pronouncement: 16 12 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order…

M/S. Rosewood Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5958/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Choudhary, Adv., Shri RajFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 68

…e Assessing Officer did not carry out the exercise required under the law. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd 361 ITR 10, after taking into consideration its earlier decision in the case of Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169, held that where the Assessing Officer without carrying out the exercise required in law reject the claim, no addition can be made u/s 68 in the hands of the company allotting shares. I am of the considered view that on the facts of the appellant’s case, addition u/s 68 is not at all justifiable.” 19. The aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT (A) in…