How many judgments cite Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT?

77 judgments on BharatTax cite Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT (206 ITR 718), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 1961, Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 115BBE.

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

206 ITR 718High Court1994#1484 most cited

What is Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits cannot be made when there is no actual cash credit or flow of funds, such as in cases of share swaps or notional credits.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT · Section 68 Income-tax Act 1961 · unexplained cash credit · share swap · notional credit · no actual cash flow · share capital addition · share premium · genuineness of transaction · addition u/s 68 deletion

Also reported as

26 ITD 236

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 1961 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 115BBE Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

share capital and share premium principal officer share application money addition u/s 68 admission of additional evidence unexplained cash credit genuineness of the transaction addition under section 68 entry operator rule 46a income-tax officer section 68

Judgments citing Jatia Investment Co. v. CIT

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…231 (P&H) CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd 332 ITR 396 (Del)  CIT vs. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del)  -CIT vs. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del)  CIT vs. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del)  Jatia Investment Co vs. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal)  Electra (Jaipur) Ltd vs. IAC. 26 ITD 236 (Del Trib.)  Y. W. C. A. of India vs. IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del Trib.) It would be appreciated that this is the first appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the impugned assessment order. The aforesaid papers and documents being details of federal taxes and state taxes paid in USA and details of ta…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

HASBRO SA,SWITZERLAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2842/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 250

…onal evidence, after obtaining a remand report from the assessing officer, if the evidence sought to be adduced by the applicant is crucial to the disposal of the appeal. Hon'ble ITA T Delhi have also held in the case Of Electra (Jaipur) (R) Lid v. IAC (1988) 26 ITD 236 that if the evidence is genuine, reliable, proves the assessee's case, then the assessee should not be denied the opportunity. Similarly it was held in Dwarka Prasad v. ITO 63 ITD 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice, and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted. Other similar rulings are 68 TT…

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

…or monetary consideration. It was submitted that such notional credit cannot be brought to tax u/s.68 of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following judicial precedents: - i. Jatia Investment Co v. CIT [1994] 206 ITR 718 (Cal); ii. V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd v. ITO [2018] 407 ITR 145 (Mad); iii. ITO v. V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd [2020] 268 Taxman 392 (Sc); iv. DCIT v. NCR Business Park (P.) Ltd [2022] 196 ITD 678 (Del-Trib); v. Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd v. ITO [ITA No.308/Kol/2017 dated 27.03.2019]; vi. PCIT v. Abhijeet Enterprise Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 859 (…

M/S PARASNATH FUELS (P) LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 213/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalparasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle 1(1), 28 Feet Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Vs Dehradun - 248198 Pan-Aaicp2190D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 08.10.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10104734 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dt. 08.10.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Assumption Of Jurisdiction In Initiating The Proceedings U/S 147 & Passing The Impugned Order U/S 147/144B & That Too Without Complying With Mandatory Conditions U/S 147 To 151A Parasnath Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Parasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Circle 1(1), 28 Feet Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Vs Dehradun - 248198 PAN-AAICP2190D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT SR. DR Date of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM, This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appellate Centre [CIT(A), in short], dated 08.10.2024…

M/S. TEDIUM COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue

ITA 1214/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…ssee's appeal to the extent indicated by taking note of the various decisions of the High Court on the very same subject. In this regard, we refer to the decision of the High Court At Madras in V.R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai 407 ITR 145 (Madras). It was held that when the assessee allotted share to a company in settlement of their existing liability of assessee to the said company, since no cash was involved in the transaction of said allotment of shares, conversion of this liability in which share capital and share premium could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under…

ARJUN SHETTY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TPS, CIRCLE - 1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Nilanjan Dey,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…is established, then, the question of explanation from the assessee actually arises. Thus, we are inclined to allow these grounds of the assessee.” g) Further, the appellant places reliance on the following decisions: a. Jatia investment co. v. CIT in [1994] 206 ITR 718 (Cal.) b. Anil Mithas v. DCIT in ITA 7542/Del/2017 c. ITO v. Bhagwat Marcom Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 2236/Kol/2017 d. ACIT v. Suren Goel in ITA 1767/Del/2011 Page 14 of 16 e. ITO v. Hindustan Breweries and bottling Ltd. in ITA 1673/Pun/2019 f. ITO v. Pansu Commercial Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 1859/Kol/2017 g. DCIT v. Glass Tech India in ITA 6241/Del/2017 h) Wher…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SURENDRAN NANOO, KERALA

ITA 821/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

…balance sheet of the above companies before and after transfer of unsecured loans and shares. The Ld. AR also relied on the decisions in cases of (i) ITO vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.2608/Del/2018; (ii) V R Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2018] 407 ITR 145 (Mad) and (iii) ITO vs. Sanjay Kumar Goel 108 TTJ 823 (Del). The Ld. AR of the appellant requested to uphold the order of CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upon the case law ITA No.821/Srt/2024 & CO 25/SRT/2024 A.Y 17-18 Surendran Nanoo re…

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…he Act. The issue is squarely covered by the following judgements: i) Jurisdictional Calcutta High court in the case of Manchest Finpro in GA No. 1 of 2021 dated 30.06.2022. ii) Jurisdictional Calcutta High court in the case of Jatia Investment Co reported in 206 ITR 718. iii) Madras High Court in the case of VR Global Energy v ITO in appeal No. 246 of 2017 dated 06.08.2018. iv) ITAT Kolkata in the case of Worldwealth Dealers Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 476/Kol/2019 pronounced on 16.03.2023 v) ITAT Kolkata in the case of Shri Ganesh Cement Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 2466/Kol/2018 pronounced on 25.02.2021. 6. The assessee has also…

MAYFAIR VILLA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes regarding issue no

ITA 1407/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 43Section 50CSection 68

…d been made in respect of stock-in-trade, section 43(A) not in operation during the year under scrutiny. The Ld. Counsel cited following decisions: 3 I.T.A. No. 1407/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mayfair Villa Pvt. Ltd. i) Jatia Investment vs. CIT [1994] 206 ITR 718 (Cal) ii) ITO vs. VP Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 31 (SC) iii) PCIT vs. Abhijit Enterprises Ltd. (Cal-HC) 5. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties. We have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO and find that there are addi…

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…sed before the lower authorities. (ii) CIT Vs. Raoraja Hanut Singh 117 Taxman 613 / 252 ITR 0528 : (Raj) The position is that the Tribunal can admit the additional evidence if it requires it to enable it to pass orders (iii) Electra (Jaipur) Pvt Ltd. vs. IAC 26 ITD 236 If evidence produced by assessee is genuine, reliable and proves assessee's case than assessee should not be denied opportunity of it being produced even if he first time produces same before appellate authority. (iv) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) Production of additional evidence – assessee taking loans from two creditors – ITO…

RENUKA RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4596/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Renuka Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 21(2), No.1, Zamrudpur Community Centre, New Delhi Kailash Colony, New Delhi. Pin: 1100 48 Pan No. Aaacr5119E (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…by means of journal/book entries. 11. The inference of the Learned CIT(A)-36 "that flow of fund though only through book entries cannot be encouraged as genuine" appearing in page 8 of 9, paragraph 7.2 is against the following case laws. a. Jatia Investments 206 ITR 718 (Kol.) b. Pandian Distributors 259 ITR 428 (Mad.) c. Kerala Transport Company 50 ITD 189 (Ker.) d. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal 142 TTJ 35 (Jai.) 12. The Learned CIT(A)-36 is wrong in ignoring all the materials available with her in drawing an inference that "in the absence of any evidence of the genuineness" in paragraph 8, page 9 of 9 which shows the…

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5892/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 68

…y the assessee in lieu of exchange of its shares, therefore, no addition u/s. 68 of the Act can be made. In support of its submission, the Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: ITO vs. Telplay Packaging Solutions Pvt. Ltd. i) Jatia Investment Co. Vs. CIT 206 ITR 718(Cal); ii) V. R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 407 ITR 145 (Mad); iii) ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Saffron Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. dated 28.08.2019; iv) ITAT, Kolkata bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Pansu Commercial Pvt. Ltd. dated 08.05.2019 and v) ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Sunglow Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. dated…

JAI BHOLA TRADING CO PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.WARD 9(3)KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm It Ward 9(3), Kolkata Jai Bhola Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7 4 Ballav Das Street, 3 Rd Floor, Chowringhee Square, 5 Th Room No.334A, Kolkata-700007, Vs. Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj1130C Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Satynarayan Raju, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satynarayan Raju, CIT DR

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

…f are available in page no. 24 of the Paper Book. Considering the said facts, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is completely in violation of the ratio laid by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Jatia Investment Co. vs CIT [1994] 206 ITR 718 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that when the money is not received during the year the provisions of Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. So far as the remaining ₹10 lacs is concerned, we note that the same was received from Para bepar South Pvt. ltd. to whom 1,000 equity shares of face value 100/- each at a premium…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. AGRAWAL GLOBAL INFRATECH PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

ITA 331/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 331/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40aSection 68

…the books of the company during the year only on account of taking over the liabilities of the partnership firm during the relevant year. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia Investment company [19941 206 ITR 718 (Cal). Thus, the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,14,35,772/- is hereby directed to be deleted. (c) Share capital increase: The increase in share capital of Rs. was added u/s 68 as proof of genuineness of transaction was not furnished. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant explained that the company had issued 6,47,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- ea…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. M/S GOLDSTONE CEMENTS LTD.

ITA/8/2022HC Gauhati16 Dec 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For Respondent: Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate

Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

…eived during the relevant year, the provisions of Section 68 of the Act could not have been invoked or applied in AY 2017-18. For this, we find support in the decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia Investment &Company vs CIT (206 ITR 718) and Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of VISP Pvt. Ltd. (265 ITR 202). We therefore hold that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that no addition was warranted u/s 68 of the Act in relation to the conversion of loan into equity to the extent of Rs.1.75,54,848/-in AY 2017-18. (iii) Even otherwise, it is noted that the explan…

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TARMAT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3106/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit 13(3)(2), Tarmat Limited Room No. 229, Roman Tarmat Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, General Vaidya Marg, M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aaact1561G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R

Section 153Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

…rovisions of section 68 are not applicable to book entry where there is no movement of funds and the appellant has relied on the various judicial precedents including that of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd reported in 407 ITR 145 (Mad.). It is further submitted that the SLP filed by revenue against the said decision has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5.1.5. Also, the appellant has submitted the following documents in the assessment/ appellate proceedings: 1. Copy of PAN card of the lenders 2. Copy of ITR-V for AY 2018-19 of the lenders 6 ITA No._3106/M…

TECHMAN BUILDWELL PRIVATE LMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 737/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…following decisions; Smt. Prabhavati S Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom), CIT v. K Ravindranthan Nair (2004) 265 ITR 217 (Ker), Dwarika Prasad v. ITO (1997) 63 ITD 1 (Pat-TM). Abhay Kumar Shroff (1997) 63 ITD 144 (Pat-TM) and Electra (Jaipur) Ltd v. IAC 26 ITD 236 (Del). 6. It comes up that the appellant is a flagship company of the Techman group of companies and has developed various residential and commercial projects in Agra, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Mathura, Modinagar and New Delhi. Appellant claims that the business of real estate requires substantial funds. The same was raised by way of share capital…

TECHMAN BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 1618/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

ACRES BUILDWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1 (3), , NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2191/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acres Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 1(3), 6-D, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Khan Pur, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan: Aaacj0152F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venketesh Chourasia, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.08.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10389/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 10.12.2019, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

…s. Pansu Commercial Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.1859/Kol/2017 dated 08.05.2019 (v) V.R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 2018 407 ITR 1545 (Mad.), SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 7079/2019 dated 05.11.2019 (vi) Jatia Investment Co. vs. CIT, (1994) 206 ITR 718 (Cal.) (vii) ITO vs. Bhagwat Marcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2236/Kol/2017 dated 31.07.2019 (viii) ACIT vs. Suren Goyal, ITA No. 1767/Del/2011 dated 01.12.2011 (ix) DCIT vs. Glass Tech India, ITA 6241/Del/2017, dt. 25.03.2022 5.2 The ld. DR has, however, countered the same by submitting that in section 68 what is required is that if there is any sum c…

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4