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 367,154 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.

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. ECI Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/s. ECI Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Rev…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. ECI Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/s. ECI Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. PAN : AAACE74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Rev…

One Stop Commosale Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 636/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…Assessment Year: 2012-13 One Stop Commosale Pvt. Ltd. creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction. Reliance placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Ganjeshwari Metals, ITA 597/2012, (Delhi High Court) 2. Finlease Pvt. Ltd 342 ITR 169 in ITA 232/2012 Judgment date 22.11.2012 3. ITO Vs. Cygnus Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 282/Kol/2012 dated 02.03.2016 (Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench) 4. ITO Ward 3(2)/Kol Vs. M/s Steel Emporium Ltd ITA No. 1061/Kol/2012, dated 05.02.2016 (Hon'ble ITAT, Bench Kolkata) 5. R. B. Horticulture & Animal Projects Co. Ltd, ITA No. 632/Kol/2011, dated…

Rajhans Infratech Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, appeal of assessee is allowed and impugned addition is deleted

ITA 2153/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2153/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, M-32, 2Nd Floor, Gk-1, Circle-21(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacd0055F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2153/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/s. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Ltd. Tax, M-32, 2nd Floor, GK-1, Circle-21(2) New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACD0055F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. R.S.Singhavi, CA & Sh. Rajat Garg, CA Revenue by Sh. B.K.Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 06.04.2023 26th .04.2023 Date of Pronouncement: ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 12.02.20…

Maruti Tradexim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2), New Delhi

ITA 3615/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…nd detailed investigations, these courts have distinguished the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stellar Investment Ltd and Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. and have upheld the invoking of section 68. i. CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) "The ratio of a decision is to be understood and appreciated in the background of the facts of that case. So understood, it will be seen that where the complete, particulars of the share applicants such as their names and addresses, income tax file numbers, their creditworthiness, share application forms and share holders' register, share…

Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

…ailed to do so. The above-mentioned company was not doing any business activities and these were engaged in giving accommodation entries. In this regard, judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del) and CIT Vs. N.R. portfolio Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 264 CTR 258 (Del) are relied upon. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. (2016) reported in 70 Taxmann.com 124 (Cal) and the judgment of IT AT, 'D' Bench, Mumbai in ITA no.l835/Mum/2014 dated 24.8.2016 in the case of Royal Rich Developers Pvt.…

Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

…ailed to do so. The above-mentioned company was not doing any business activities and these were engaged in giving accommodation entries. In this regard, judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del) and CIT Vs. N.R. portfolio Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 264 CTR 258 (Del) are relied upon. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. (2016) reported in 70 Taxmann.com 124 (Cal) and the judgment of IT AT, 'D' Bench, Mumbai in ITA no.l835/Mum/2014 dated 24.8.2016 in the case of Royal Rich Developers Pvt.…

DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi vs. Priytam Plaschem P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6038/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6038/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Vs M/S Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd., Circle-20(1), X-53, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110002 Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp4629G Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…luding that of 5 Priytam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd. this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd., [(2015) 375 ITR 373]. Further decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. [(2012) 342 ITR 169]; Pr. CIT vs. Bikram Singh [(2017) 399 ITR 362 (Del.)] were relied upon. 3. The principle applicable to decide whether the amount can be brought to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act are identity of the investor/ creditor, its credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The initial burden of discharging this is upon the assess…

Diya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1929/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccd3991L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., vs ITO, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. PAN-AACCD3991L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi dated 26.12.2018. 2. The assess…

ITO, Ward- 4(1), New Delhi vs. Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 29/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 29/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITO, Vs. M/s Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1), B-3, M-Block, AVG Bhawan, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCB7329N Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-2, New Delhi d…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S. Kochar Overseas P.Ltd, Amritsar

ITA 627/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…1 1ITA No. 627 & CO No. 58/Asr/2014 Dy. CIT v. Kochar Overseas P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.627/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s Kochar Overseas (P) Ltd., Income Tax, Circle –III, KotMit Singh, Tarn Taran Amritsar Road, Amritsar [PAN: AACCK 6199F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 58/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Kochar Overseas (P) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of KotMit Singh, Tarn Taran Income Tax, Circle –III, Road, Amritsar Amrits…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Accentor Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3278/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition. Ld. D.R. also placed reliance on the decision in the case NRA Steel [2019] 218 ITR 161 (SC), the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. 305 ITR 202, Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi High Court), Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta High Court) and Swati Bajaj 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta High Court). 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s. 68 of the Act, on account of share premium by 9 investor companies that was m…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…indings of the Ld. CIT(A) 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 Hon’ble 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. Th…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…indings of the Ld. CIT(A) 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 Hon’ble 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. Th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Probuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 1392/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 143(2)Section 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…

Triangle Trading Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7137/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…llant failed to do so. The investing entities were only paper/ shell/without substance companies without any genuine business activities. In this regard judgements of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del) and CIT Vs. N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 258 (Del) are relied upon. Further, the judgement of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. (2016; reported in 70 Taxmann.com 124 (Cal) and the judgement of ITAT, ‘D’ Bench. Mumbai in ITA no. 1835/Mum/2014 dated 24.8.2016 in the case of Royal Rich Developers…

M/S. Kopran Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 501/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 133Section 143Section 68

…dependent upon the individuals behind them who run and manage the said companies. It is the persons behind the company who take the decisions, controls and manage them. Kopran Limited; A.Y. 14–15 10.11. In CIT v. Nova Promoters and Firilease (P.) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), it was observed as under:- "The ratio of a decision is to be understood and appreciated in the background of the facts of that case. So understood, it will be seen that where the complete particulars of the share applicants such as their names and addresses, Income-tax file numbers, their creditworthiness, share application forms and sh…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, BMC Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAKFT 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARs Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar date…

M/S. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1823/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1823, 1819 & 1821/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…0,05,608/- which was rightly disallowed by Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act" 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision in Nova Promoters and Finlease 342 ITR 169 (2012) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere filing of PAN, ITRS, account confirmations and bank statements of the creditors is not sufficient enough to discharge the onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the 3 I.T.A. No. 1823/Mum/2021 and Others M/s Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Act, 1961 when there are sufficient…

M/S. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1820/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1820/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…count during demonetization of Rs. 4,29,77,547/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision in Nova Promoters and Finlease 342 ITR 169 (2012) wherein the Hon'ble 3 I.T.A. No. 1820 & 1854/Mum/2021 M/s Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Delhi High Court held that mere filing of PAN, ITRS, account confirmations and bank statements of the creditors is not sufficient enough to discharge the onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when there are sufficient evi…