How many judgments cite Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

130 judgments on BharatTax cite Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (353 ITR 171), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

353 ITR 171High Court2013#789 most cited

What is Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee furnishes sufficient evidence proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loan or share application transactions under Section 68, the Assessing Officer cannot make an addition solely because summons issued to the creditors or subscribers were unserved or went uncomplied with. The inability of the tax authorities to secure the attendance or response of third parties does not automatically negate the evidence provided by the assessee.

130

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 353 ITR 171 · Section 68 · Section 131 · Section 133(6) · cash credit addition · share application money · identity creditworthiness genuineness · third party non-compliance · summons unserved · assessee's burden of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 106 creditworthiness of the creditor share capital and share premium bogus share capital source of source principal officer share application money mere change of opinion section 131 genuineness of the transaction section 133(6)addition u/s 68

Judgments citing Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Ncs, Impex Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…ompt Barter Private Limited vs ITO, Ward- 8(3), Haldia in ITA No. 806/Kol/2023 dated 11.10.2023 also the decision of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT vs Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom), Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol), ITO vs M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. All these decision are discussed as under: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the a…

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 6. The Ld. D.R while controverting the arguments of the Ld. A.R submitted that…

Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 1St Floor, 134/1, M.G. Road, Vs Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. Pan: Aaccn 8291 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 19.07.2023 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. Issue Raised In Ground No. 2 To 5 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of Ao Wherein The Ao Has Made Addition Of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- On Account Of Share Capital / Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ansactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: “1. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3. Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom)” Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 6. The Ld. D.R while controverting the arguments of the Ld. A.R submitted that t…

Sati Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kol, Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ified by the assessing officer pursuant to the enquiry conducted in response to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. The learned Tribunal also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT. reported in 353 ITR 171 (CAL). Thus we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.” We therefore respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The gr…

Minto Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1276/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…o question of law much less substantial question of law which arose for consideration in the said appeal and thus, the appeal filed was dismissed. A reference was also made by the Hon’ble Court to its decision in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 253 ITR 171 (Cal) on which the Tribunal had placed its reliance. 9. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee’s own income has been infused in the guise of share capital through the investor companies. According to him, assessee could not establish the identity and creditworthiness of the share…

M/S City Shoppe Estates Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

Sahal Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2621/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ing to state a case.” 4 I.T.A. No. 2621/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sahal Food Products Pvt . Ltd. 6.1 The case of the assessee is also squarely covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (353 ITR 171 (Cal) wherein it has held that where all the evidences were filed by the assessee proving the identity and creditworthiness of the loan transactions , the fact that summon issued were returned un-served or no body complied with them is of little significance to prove the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the cre…

M/S Dv Re-Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…o question of law much less substantial question of law which arose for consideration in the said appeal and thus, the appeal filed was dismissed. A reference was also made by the Hon’ble Court to its decision in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 253 ITR 171 (Cal) on which the Tribunal had placed its reliance. 10. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee’s own income has been infused in the guise of share capital through the investor companies. According to him, assessee could not establish the identity and creditworthiness of the shar…

Nano Infra Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 290/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) ITO-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising out of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ ITO-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3rd Floor, Vashi Com…

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. JR Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम / National Faceless Appeal Vs. ACIT-Circle-4(3)(1) Centre Room No. 649, M. K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACJ6312K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 24/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/01…

ITO, WD. -4(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…rified by the assessing officer pursuant to the enquiry conducted in response to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. The learned Tribunal also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (CAL). Thus we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed." 11. Before concluding, to give our finding, we place reliance on the following judicial precedents to buttress our observations and conclusions : i) The decision of…

Autumn Builders Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)

…the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) 4 I.T.A. No.883/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Autumn Builders Ltd. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 7. The…

Ivy Buildreal (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…rrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case.” 6. The case of the assessee is also squarely covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (Cal) wherein it has held that where all the evidences were filed by the assessee proving the identity and creditworthiness of the loan transactions, the fact that summon issued were returned un-served or no body complied with them is of little significance to prove the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the cred…

Orthy Impex (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 855/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…ived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case.” 6.1. The case of the assessee is also squarely covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (Cal) wherein it has held that where all the evidences were filed by the assessee proving the identity and creditworthiness of the loan transactions , the fact that summon issued were returned un-served or no body complied with them is of little significance to prove the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the cre…

Sng Dealers Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 147Section 68

…11-12 SNG Dealers Pvt. Ltd. the addition when the assessee has filed all the evidences and the case of the assessee finds support from following decisions CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), Crystal Networks (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (Cal), ITO vs. M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom). The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the k…

M/S. Delta Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1842/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…on- appearance of the directors of such corporate entities cannot be a ground to draw adverse inference. 3.5. The ld. AR relied on the following decision in order to substantiate his claim in the case of Cristal Networks Put. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in (2013] 353 ITR 171 (Cal.), it is held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that when the assessee files all the necessary evidences or records before the Assessing Officer then mere failure of the creditor parties to appear cannot form the basis to invoke Section 61/Section 68 of the Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal considering the judicial precedents held that once the ass…

M/S Saket Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 683/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 68

…g the addition. The ld. Counsel for I.T.A. No. 683/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Saket Developers Private Ltd. 6 the assessee also referred to the following decisions in support of its grounds raised on merits:-  Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT - 353 ITR 171 (Cal HC.)  ITO vs. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012)  CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom.)  Pr. CIT vs. Chain House International Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 561 (MP)  CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.)  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (S…

M/S. Prompt Barter Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…31 of the Act were duly complied. In defense of his argument he relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and 3 Prompt Barter Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 5. The Ld. D.R strongly controverted and opposed the arguments as put forth by the Ld. A.R by submitting that the share application money was received by the asses…

M/S. Delighted Holdings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcir, Cir-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 626/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…tigation on these evidences. In defense of his argument, Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. M/s. Delighted Holdings Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of authorities below by submitting that assessee has failed to furnish the req…