PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Himachal Fibres Ltd

Bench: Him, The Ao Concluded That The Identity Of The Shareholders & The Genuineness Of The Transaction Had Not Been Established & Accordingly Brought To Tax The Said Amount. The Cit(A), Who Sought A Remand Report, Noted That The Ao Had Recorded In The Course Of His Order That The Assessee Was A

…ack of enquiry by AO from share holders u/s.68 which is repeatedly held in various decisions by Jurisdictional Delhi high court in decisions mentioned in assessee's paper book at sr no. 13 namely Hon'ble Delhi high court decisions in cases (a) N.C.Cables 391 ITR 11 (b) Softline creations 387 ITR 636 and c) Gangeshwari Metals 361 ITR 10. Further, we note recent full bench of Hon'ble P&H high court decision in case of Jawahar Lal Oswal reported at 382 ITR 453 in context of section 68 additions, wherein it is lucidly held that: "... The principle that governs a deeming provision is that the initial…

Rahul Singhal Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Rahul Singhal Securities Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 15(1), 169, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

…explained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. He relied on the following decisions :- (a) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR (St) 5 (SC). (b) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). (c) Pr.CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 391 ITR 11 (Delhi). (d) CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi). (e) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 380 (Bom). 5 CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] ITA no.1433 of 2014 (Bom). 8. Ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has not produced th…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Bhakti Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

…AO. In addition to decisions relied upon before the first appellate authority, the assessee has relied on the following decisions : (i). M/s. Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2436/Del./15-ITAT Deli Bench) (ii). Principal CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., 391 ITR 11(Delhi HC) (iii). ACIT vs. Express Earth Movers (ITA No. 508/Del./2012- ITAT Delhi Bench). 7. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, we find that in the facts narrated above, the first and foremost question which is necessary to address is whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evide…

Shri Gajraj Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

…t permitted in law and the case is covered by the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench SMC-III in ITAT no. 6138/D/2015 vide order dated 22.11.2016 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. NC Cables reported (2017) 391 ITR 11. Page 4 of 10 The copies of the orders were placed on record. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon orders of both the authorities below. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The case is covered by the decision of ld. Bench in the case of Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel (supra). For the sake of convenience the decisio…