Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

…her ence of any other ence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO viii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ed complete details of the shareholder alongwith bank statements, confirmation and therefore same would constitute acceptable proof, acceptable explanation u/s 68 of the Act and in absence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn." ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) viii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

…her ence of any other ence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO viii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ed complete details of the shareholder alongwith bank statements, confirmation and therefore same would constitute acceptable proof, acceptable explanation u/s 68 of the Act and in absence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn." ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO viii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

…her ence of any other ence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn.” ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO viii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ed complete details of the shareholder alongwith bank statements, confirmation and therefore same would constitute acceptable proof, acceptable explanation u/s 68 of the Act and in absence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn." ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) viii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ed complete details of the shareholder alongwith bank statements, confirmation and therefore same would constitute acceptable proof, acceptable explanation u/s 68 of the Act and in absence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn." ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) viii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ed complete details of the shareholder alongwith bank statements, confirmation and therefore same would constitute acceptable proof, acceptable explanation u/s 68 of the Act and in absence of any other contrary evidence no adverse inference can be drawn." ii) 267 ITR 433 (Del) CIT v. Makhni Tyagi (P) Ltd. iii) 299 ITR 268 (Del) CIT v Divine Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. iv) 307 ITR 334 (Del) CIT v. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. v) 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. vi) 333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. vii) viii) 354 ITR 282 (Del) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO 357 ITR 146 (Del) C…

M/S. SOUTH WEST PINNACLE EXPLORATION LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

…following decision :- (i) Mod Creations (P.) Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer ITA No.1158 of 2007; (ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sheel Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT judgement dated 28.05.2025 in ITA No. 546/2023; (iii) CIT vs. Makhni and Tyagi (P) Ltd. 267 ITR 433 (Del) 25; (iv) ITO Vs M/s. Rakam Money Matters P. Ltd ITA No.2821/Del./2011; 15 Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO, ITA No. 5955/DEL/2014; (vi) PCIT Vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 106 (Delhi); (vii) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders [2002]256ITR360(Guj); (viii) Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal Vs DCIT [2024] 169…

PUSHP STEELS & MINING (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

…391 ITR 11 DATED 11.1.2017 - CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME AND CHEMICALS LTD. ITA NO. 82 TO 89/2012 DATED 15.10.2014. - CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 - CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 0098 (Del.) - CIT vs. Makhni and Tyagi P Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 433 (Del.) - CIT vs. Lovely Export 299 ITR 268 (SC) - CIT vs. Gangour Investment Ltd. ITA No. 34/2007 - CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta 207 CTR 115 - CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. CC 375/2008 - CIT vs. Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 467/2014 vide order dated 16.4.2015. 4. On the contrary, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the orders of the authorities bel…

M/S. RANDEEP INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

…it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises”. In CIT vs. Makhni and Tyagi (P) Ltd. 267 ITR 433 (Del) it was held by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as under: “If the AO felt that their examination was absolutely necessary then he could have enforced their attendance as pointed out by Allahabad High Court in Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All) and E.M.C. (Works) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All). This Court is of the…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RANDEEP INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

…it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises”. In CIT vs. Makhni and Tyagi (P) Ltd. 267 ITR 433 (Del) it was held by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as under: “If the AO felt that their examination was absolutely necessary then he could have enforced their attendance as pointed out by Allahabad High Court in Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All) and E.M.C. (Works) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All). This Court is of the…

M/S. UMBRELLA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O Gh – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aatpa 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

…conduct an enquiry into the particulars about the creditors furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 433, CIT v Antartica Investment P. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 493 and CIT v Achal Investment Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211. To put it simply, in these cases the decision was based on the fundamental rule of law that evidence or material adduced by the assessee cannot be thrown out without any enquiry. The ratio does not extend beyond that. The boundaries of the r…

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. ANAND TISSUES LTD., MEERUT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 3897/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10. Asstt. Commissioner M/S. Anand Tissues Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs. 16 Km., Meerut Mawana Road, Circle : 1, Meerut. Vill. Fitkari, Meerut. M E E R U T. Pan : Aabca 1790 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…marked as Annexure I. He relied upon those documentary evidences and cited the following decisions in support :- 5 I. T. Appeal No. 3897/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10. (i) Nathu Ram Chand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All.); (ii) CIT Vs. Makhni & Tyagi (P.) Ltd. 267 ITR 433 (Del.); (iii) EMC Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 49 ITR 650 (All.); (iv) JCIT Vs. Mathura Das Ashok Kumar 101 TTJ (All.) 810; (v) Crystal Network Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Cal.). 3.3 Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Assessing Officer had noted total sundry creditors were of Rs.9.14 crores. Enquiry letters were addre…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IME INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…ist then, possibly, no further enquiry need be made. But if the Income-tax Officer finds that the alleged shareholders do not exist, then in effect, it would mean that there is no valid issuance of share capital. " In CIT V. Makhni and Tyagi (P.) Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 433 -(Del.), the Court held: "This court is of the opinion that when documentary evidence was placed on record to prove the identity of all the shareholders including their P AN/GIR numbers and filing of other documentary evidence in the form of ration card, etc., which had neither been controverted nor disproved by the Assessing Officer, then no in…

CIT vs. TITAN SECURITIES LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…e particulars about the creditors furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in CIT v. Dolphin Canpack [2006] 283 ITR 190 (Delhi), CIT v. Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 433 (Delhi), CIT v. Antartica Investment P. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 493 (Delhi) and CIT v. Achal Investment Ltd. [2004] 268 ITR 211 (Delhi). To put it simply, in these cases the decision was based on the fundamental rule of law that evidence or material adduced by the assessee cannot be thrown out without any enquiry. The ratio does not exten…

CIT vs. TITAN SECURITIES LTD.

…e particulars about the creditors furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in CIT v. Dolphin Canpack [2006] 283 ITR 190 (Delhi), CIT v. Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 433 (Delhi), CIT v. Antartica Investment P. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 493 (Delhi) and CIT v. Achal Investment Ltd. [2004] 268 ITR 211 (Delhi). To put it simply, in these cases the decision was based on the fundamental rule of law that evidence or material adduced by the assessee cannot be thrown out without any enquiry. The ratio does not exten…