DCIT v. Global Mercantiles (P) Ltd.

157 ITD 924Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#9434 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also reported as

67 Taxmann.com 166

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 40a(3)section 194aaddition under section 68

Judgments citing DCIT v. Global Mercantiles (P) Ltd.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PUJITA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1293/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1293/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata………………………..………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.…..….........…………..…........……...…..…..Respondent 37E, Block-B, New Alipore, Kolkata – 700053. [Pan: Aadcp7771M] Appearances By: Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record, Wherein, The Reasons For The Delay Have Duly Been Mentioned. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Find Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate Upon The Matter. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year In Question On 27.09.2012 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.11,100/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & In Response To

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…following judicial precedents: 1. CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. reported in [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) 2. CIT vs. Jagat Kumar Satishbhai Patel reported in [2014] 225 Taxman 190 (Gujarat) 3. DCIT vs. Global Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2016] 157 ITD 924 4. Systensia Network Security India vs. ITO in ITA No.2927/Mum2/17 dated 27.07.2018 5. In appeal before this Tribunal, the revenue contested that the decision of CIT(A) ascertaining the deletion of Rs.9,25,00,000/- was incorrect and liable to be set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A), since the director of the investor companies could not appear b…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ITA No. 2927/Mum/2017 dated 15.6.2018 Syntensia Network Security India (P) Ltd. vs. ITO viii) ITA No 1078/Bang/2014 Glen Willians vs ACIT ix) ITA No 305/Mds/2016 M/s. Sooraj Leathers vs. ITO x) ITA No 557/LKW/20M dated 17.3.2016 ITO vs. Shri Kamal Raheja xi) 157 ITD 924 (Calcutta - Trib.) DCIT vs. Global Mercantiles (P) Ltd. 28.1 With regard to the sum of Rs.12,76,80,548/-, undisputedly, these are outstanding balances reflected as payable and are opening balances carried forward with regard thereto , the issue as to the genuineness of credit entries therefore, does not arise in the year under consideration. T…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ITA No. 2927/Mum/2017 dated 15.6.2018 Syntensia Network Security India (P) Ltd. vs. ITO viii) ITA No 1078/Bang/2014 Glen Willians vs ACIT ix) ITA No 305/Mds/2016 M/s. Sooraj Leathers vs. ITO x) ITA No 557/LKW/20M dated 17.3.2016 ITO vs. Shri Kamal Raheja xi) 157 ITD 924 (Calcutta - Trib.) DCIT vs. Global Mercantiles (P) Ltd. 28.1 With regard to the sum of Rs.12,76,80,548/-, undisputedly, these are outstanding balances reflected as payable and are opening balances carried forward with regard thereto , the issue as to the genuineness of credit entries therefore, does not arise in the year under consideration. T…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ITA No. 2927/Mum/2017 dated 15.6.2018 Syntensia Network Security India (P) Ltd. vs. ITO viii) ITA No 1078/Bang/2014 Glen Willians vs ACIT ix) ITA No 305/Mds/2016 M/s. Sooraj Leathers vs. ITO x) ITA No 557/LKW/20M dated 17.3.2016 ITO vs. Shri Kamal Raheja xi) 157 ITD 924 (Calcutta - Trib.) DCIT vs. Global Mercantiles (P) Ltd. 28.1 With regard to the sum of Rs.12,76,80,548/-, undisputedly, these are outstanding balances reflected as payable and are opening balances carried forward with regard thereto , the issue as to the genuineness of credit entries therefore, does not arise in the year under consideration. T…

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…amount had been credited by the assessee in their accounts during the year under consideration. Therefore, applicability of section 68 was ruled out and addition could not be made under this section.” 5.6 In case of DCIT vs. Global Mercantiles (P) Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 924 (Kolkata Trib) it was clearly held that admittedly no moneys were received during the assessment year under appeal and hence there is no scope for invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 5.7 The Hon'ble Bench of ITAT, Indore in the case of Shri Girish Kumar Sharda (I.T.A.(SS) Nos. 30 to 33/Ind/2012) had upheld the deletion of additions…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHREM TRADING LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 3079/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 148Section 56(2)(x)Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘G’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. M/s. Shrem Trading LLP ACIT, Central Circle-5(4) Room No. 1927 1101, Viraj Tower 19th Floor Junction of Andheri Kurla Air India Building Road, Andheri East Nariman Point Mumbai-400 069. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : ABYFS9682H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prateek Jain Department by Shri Paresh Deshpande Date of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this appeal cha…

ACIT CENTTRAL -2 INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

ITA 13/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…n earlier years, the same cannot be considered u/s 68 in the year under consideration and the AO was not justified in making the impugned addition u/s 68. I also find that the Honourable Kolkatta ITAT in the case of DCIT V/s Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 924 on similar facts upheld the order passed by the CIT(A). The facts of this case before the Honourable ITAT were that the assesse received share application money in earlier years which were kept in share application account and the shares were allotted to these share applicants out of transferring monies from share application account to share cap…

DCIT 6 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S BLBIR METALS AND POWER PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7870/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Co No. 59/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 7870/Mum/2019) A.Y 2010-11 Dcit – 6(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Balbir Metals & Room No. 506, 5Th Power Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 423, Nav Vyapar Mk Road, Mumbai. Bhavan, Pd Mello Road Carnac Bunder, Masjid East, Mumbai – 400009. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0452D Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Shri Chandra Vijay, Dr Appellant By : Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ca Ar Date Of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objections . First, We Shall Take Up The Revenue Appeal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & CO No. 59/Mum/2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 7870/Mum/2019) A.Y 2010-11 DCIT – 6(1)(2) Vs. M/s. Balbir Metals and Room No. 506, 5th Power Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 423, Nav Vyapar MK Road, Mumbai. bhavan, PD Mello Road Carnac Bunder, masjid East, Mumbai – 400009. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AADCB0452D Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Shri Chandra Vijay, DR Appellant by : Respondent by : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, CA AR Date of Hearing 17.06.…

SYNTENSIA NETWORK SECURITY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

…nexplained credit for that year. Opening balance is not subjected to tax u/s. 68 of the Act as the same is representing the credit of another previous year. For this purpose reliance is placed by learned AR on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. [2016] 157 ITD 924 (Kolkata • Trib.) DCIT vs. Global Mercantiles (P.) Ltd. [Identical issue.] IT: Where assessee received share application monies in earlier year and only shares were allotted to applicants during assessment year under appeal, provisions of section 68 could not be invoked to make addition III. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (…

RAM SWAROOP BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 99/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ram Swaroop Bajaj . –Vs- Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aefpb 2300 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit JalanFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 68

…be taxed under the head “Capital Gains” but was to be taxed under the head other sources as unexplained income. 12. In the decision cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 67 Taxmann.com 166 (Kol), the issue was an addition of share capital. The ITAT held that no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment year under appeal, as no money was received during the year. The facts in the present case are different. The assessee had claimed that it had received an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on sale of capital asset and…

BLUE DIAMOND INFRASTRUCTURE & REALTY P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6176/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…7. Madhuri Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 110 of 2004) (Kar. HC) 8. CIT vs. Arunananda Textiles Pvt. I td (2011) 333 ITR II 6 (Kar. HC) 9. CIT vs. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. (270 FIR 477) (Raj. HC) 10. DCIT Vs. Global Merchantiles (P.) Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 924 (Kol. Trib.) 11. ACIT Vs. ETC Industries I.td. (2012) 52 SOT 159 (Indore Trib.) Proposition 2: Non production of parties cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act: 1. CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 (Del HC) 2. CIT Vs. Orbital Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 560 (Del.HC) Blue Diamond 9 3. CIT Vs. Som Tobacco India Ltd…

ASST CIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DIAMOND INFRASTRUCTURE & REALITY P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6119/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…7. Madhuri Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 110 of 2004) (Kar. HC) 8. CIT vs. Arunananda Textiles Pvt. I td (2011) 333 ITR II 6 (Kar. HC) 9. CIT vs. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. (270 FIR 477) (Raj. HC) 10. DCIT Vs. Global Merchantiles (P.) Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 924 (Kol. Trib.) 11. ACIT Vs. ETC Industries I.td. (2012) 52 SOT 159 (Indore Trib.) Proposition 2: Non production of parties cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act: 1. CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 (Del HC) 2. CIT Vs. Orbital Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 560 (Del.HC) Blue Diamond 9 3. CIT Vs. Som Tobacco India Ltd…