Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 5(2), Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 9, Section 148.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169)

Q: 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.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.?

658 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), spanning 2012 to 2026.

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rose Wood Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., 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 5411/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…

Chirag R. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…his case it was held that insufficiency of reasons could not be a ground for quashing of the notice under section 148 at its threshold. (b) Shree Bajrang Commercial Co. (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 338 (Cal.). (c) CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi). In this case the question as whether at stage of issuing notice under section 148 merits of matter are not relevant and Assessing Officer at that stage is required to form only a prima facie belief or opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment? The answer was given in the affirmative. 9. Further learned CIT(A) observed…

Shri Nareshbhai V Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT-33(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4912/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…n the following case laws in this regard. CIT v Navodaya Castles (P) Ltd. 56 taxmann.com 18(50), which has confirmed the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Navodaya Castles (P) Ltd. 367ITR306 (Delhi) CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finkase (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217, CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2014] 222 Taxman 157/42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi) and CIT v. MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 258/42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi) The above decisions refer to the earlier decisions of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/[1993] 70 Taxman 69 (FB), CIT v.…

Braham Prakash Lakra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 67(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7650/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ank account, as having come to the notice of the Assessing Officer through AIR, can be reason enough for holding the belief that income has escaped assessment. She has relied upon the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxmann 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) but then none of the questions before Hon'ble High Court had anything to do with reopening of assessment and this decision cannot, therefore, be taken as an authority on the legal issue which did not even come up for specific adjudication before their Lordships. As for her reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Cou…

Marudhara Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

ITA 890/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…he substantial question of law framed by us in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal of the revenue is allowed with no order as to costs." 12. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) where Hon'ble 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. It Was held as follows: "41. In the case before us, not only did the material before the Assessing Officer show the link between the entr…

Rs India Infrapower Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3238/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishirs India Infrapower Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, Gl Business Centre, Dundahera, Ward-3(4), Old Delhi, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aaecp9526H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal;. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ed the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Nova castles private limited (2014) 50 taxmann.com 110, CIT vs Nipun builders and developers 350 ITR 407 (del), Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. nova promoters and finlease private limited 342 ITR 169 and other decisions of the honourable jurisdictional High Court. Thus, he confirmed the addition made by the learned assessing officer and enhanced the income of the assessee by INR 13960. Thus, the addition was confirmed under section 68 of the income tax act. Assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred this appeal before us. 5. This…

Prime Comfort Products P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Raj Kumar & Sumit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.267/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prime Comfort Products P. vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), Ltd., New Delhi. L-7A (LGF), South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAFCP 2306Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: S/Shri Raj Kumar & Sumit Goel, CA Respondent by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 11 07 2019 Date of pronouncement: 04 10 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impug…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…nces the invocation of Section 68 of the Act is ab initio fallacious and untenable. None of the cases as cited by the Ld. CIT(DR) are relevant to the issue in hand. In particular Para of the judgement and order of the Delhi High Court in Nova Promoters (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del) case is of cardinal importance and only goes to endorse the assessee’s plea regarding shifting or onus u/s 68 of the Act. 13. On the aspect of natural justice and cross examination cases cited as Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT (2015) 59 Taxman.com 212 (Delhi.Trib), CIT vs. Kuber Fibers Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 77 Taxman.com 345 (Delhi) and GTC Ind…

Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 2732/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roynishant Construction Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 801 – 802, Regency Circle – 3(1)(1), Plaza, Anand Nagar Road, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [Pan No.Aaacn 3752 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: 10.07.2019

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ue especially when the share application money has been introduced into a company by means of accommodation entry. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred to judgments such as CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), CIT vs Nova Promoters and Finlease P. Ltd., 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), CIT vs N R Portfolio P. Ltd. 206 DLT 97 (Del.), CIT vs MAP Academy P. Ltd. 206 DLT 277 (Del.) etc. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. 230 Taxman.com 268 dated 16/1/2015 by which it has dismissed the SLP filed against the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I am of the considered o…

Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3103/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3103/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 241, Loha Mandi, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7938P Assessee By : Sh. M. S. Sekhon, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.09.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. M. S. Sekhon, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…he substantial question of law framed by us in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal of the revenue is allowed with no order as to costs.” 12. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble 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. It Was held as follows: “41. In the case before us, not only did the material before the Assessing Officer show the link…

Rkg Housing (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 1565/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Devinder Pal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1565/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. RKG Housing (P) Ltd., New Delhi. PAN AADCR4900J The Income Tax Officer, C/o. Sh. Devinder Pal, vs., Ward-20(3), C.R. Advocate, 8756/3, FF Multani Dhanda, Pahar Building, ITO, New Delhi. Ganj, New Delhi – 110055 PAN AADCR4900J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devinder Pal, Advocate For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Asses…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…re classified into two separate categories observing as under:- "11. We have heard the Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, who has relied upon decisions of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income Tax vs.. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., 206 (2014) DLT 97 (DB) (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax-ll vs. MAF Academy P. Ltd. 206 (2014) DLT 277 (DB) (Del). The aforesaid decisions mentioned above refer to the earlier decisions of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 IIR 98…