How many judgments cite PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd.?

70 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd. (410 ITR 379), spanning 2019 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 1961, Section 132, Section 153C, Section 131.

PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd.

410 ITR 379High Court2019#1611 most cited

What is PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd. authority for?

The assessee has the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share capital and share premium subscribers under Section 68; merely providing documentation is insufficient if transactions are found to be sham, justifying additions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd. · Section 68 · bogus share capital · share premium · accommodation entries · cash credits · onus of proof · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of subscriber · Section 133(6) · human probabilities · sham transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 1961 Section 132 Section 153C Section 131 Section 143(3)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 66 section 153a proceedings share capital and share premium audi alteram partem mli permanent account number section 56(2)(vii)bogus share capital section 260 live link section 260a onus of proof

Judgments citing PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd.

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 73/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

…r thus, in absence of satisfactory explanation by assessee, Assessing Officer was bound to make additions under section 68- Held, yes [in favour of revenue] 8.14 Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379 (Del) where it was held "we have no hesitation in holding that transactions in question were clearly sham and make believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature...... The reasoning given s contrary to human probabilities for in the normal course of conduct, no one will take Investment of such huge amounts without being concer…

EASTERN AND WESTERN DRESSES TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-8(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1939/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Eastern & Western Dresses Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ward-8(1), No. 7, Shankar Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabce5153G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

…worthiness of the share subscribers. The failure to produce the subscribers and statement of the director that the entire investment is bogus justifies the addition, (ITA No. 438 of 2017, dt. 22.07.2019) (AY.2007-08) 6.5 PCIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (2019) 410 ITR 379/ 175 DTR 30/261 Taxman 270/307 CTR 281 (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org Cash credits Share capital- Share premium- Bogus share capital in form of accommodation entries- Directors were working as peons, receptionists etc., who have admitted that they have signed the documents as per direction of Mr. Tarun Goyal- Details were filed, however they ha…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

ITA/530/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

…sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. (emphasis supplied) 12.3. The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment delivered in CIT v. NDR Promoters (P) Ltd. [CIT v. NDR Promoters (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6599 : (2019) 410 ITR 379] upheld the additions made by the assessing officer on account of introducing bogus share capital into the assessee company on the facts of the case. 12.4. The Courts have held that in the case of cash credit entries, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors to…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

ITA/531/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX DELHI - 5 vs. MRS. ROWENA SHARMA

ITA/1220/2018HC Delhi11 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80

…um found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. (emphasis supplied) 12.3. The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment delivered in CIT v. NDR Promoters (P) Ltd. [CIT v. NDR Promoters (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6599 : (2019) 410 ITR 379] upheld the additions made by the assessing officer on account of introducing bogus share capital into the assessee company on the facts of the case. 12.4. The Courts have held that in the case of cash credit entries, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors t…

BEST REALTRECH INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 390/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanm/S Best Realtrech Income Tax Officer, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(3), New Delhi H-8, First Floor, Vs. Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan:Aadcb1848D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

…conducted independent enquiry in respect of creditor party to which there is no compliance. The AO's onus stands discharged and his action is justified. 6.15 Further, the recent decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in the cases of NDR Promoters 410 ITR 379 (Del) & NRA Iron & Steel103 TM. com (SC) have discussed in detail the issue of accommodation entry business including share capital / share premium and decided in favour of Revenue. 6.16 In view of the above facts and decisions, the addition made by the AO is confirmed. These grounds are ruled against the appellant.” Aggrieved, assessee is in app…

HERITAGE HOSPITALS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 4090/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

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

…available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature.' (emphasis supplied) iii. The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment delivered in PR.CIT v. NDR Promoters (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 182/410 ITR 379 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of introducing bogus share capital into the assessee company on the facts of the case. iv. The Courts have held that in the case of cash credit entries, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors to advance m…

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…s available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature." (emphasis supplied) iii. The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment delivered in PR.CIT v. NDR Promoters (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 182/410 ITR 379 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of introducing bogus share capital into the assessee company on the facts of the case. iv. The Courts have held that in the case of cash credit entries, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors to advance m…

ITO-13(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SETHIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

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

…circumstances available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature.” (emphasis supplied) iii. The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment delivered in PR.CIT -6, New Delhi v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 410 ITR 379, upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of introducing bogus share capital into the assessee company on the facts of the case. iv. The Courts have held that in the case of cash credit entries, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors to advance…

QUEST ONLINE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [PAN:AAAFQ4820G] vs. ITO, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. Datta, CIT, Sr…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 774/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…vest in the assessee company at a premium. 47. Before concluding, we would like to discuss the judgments so relied by learned CIT DR. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. We have gone through all the aforesaid cases and rather have found that the said judgments support the case of assesse companies, as the main proposition which has been laid down i…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 773/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 772/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. LIZER CYLINDERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7309/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

…nvest in the assessee company at a premium. 47. Before concluding, we would like to discuss the judgments so relied by learned CIT DR. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. We have gone through all the aforesaid cases and rather have found that the said judgments support the case of assessee companies, as the main proposition which has been laid down…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, NEW DELHI vs. LIZER CYLINDERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…e dismissed.” Page 8 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore 2.5. The Ld.CIT(A) thus dismissed the legal issue raised by the assessee. On merits of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379 and by applying the test of human probability as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad reported in 82 ITR 540 upheld the action of the Ld.AO by observing as under: “7.12 I find that the entire amount of the so called receipt on sale of shares has been treated correctly as unexplained c…

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

ITA 258/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. Agrawal, Adv. &VinayGoel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh Sr.D.R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.258/Alld./2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Govind Stone Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 5(4), 43, 1st Floor, v. Banda, U.P. MohallaMishrana Hamirpur, Distt- Hamirpur, U.P. 210301. PAN:AADCG4838L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri. R. S. Agrawal, Adv. &VinayGoel, C.A. Respondent by: Shri A.K. Singh Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 15.11. 2022 Date of pronouncement: 19.12.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assess…

M/S. KOPRAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -7(1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 501/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR

Section 133Section 143Section 68

…not part of legitimate tax planning. are ME TAX DEPAR (emphasis added) Kopran Limited; A.Y. 14–15 10.7. In this regard, reference could also be made to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Private Limited reported in 410 ITR 379, wherein it was held that where the transaction in question is sham and make believe with paper work to camouflage the bogus nature, the transaction is to be treated as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the IT Act. 10.8. Since the assessee claimed that the loans were genuine, the onus was on the appellant under section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1972…

ITO WARD - 10(4), NEW DELHI vs. GUNGUN GOLD INFRA PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5143/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3Rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcs7132B

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO, Vs. Gungun Gold Infra Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, 1185, Kucha Ward-10(4), New Delhi Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAHCS7132B Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 01/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/09/2022 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 26.03.2019 of CIT(A)-08, New Delhi (hereinafter ref…

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ,UTTARPRADESH vs. CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…e also placed strong reliance upon various decisions and mainly on the following; 1. PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) 2. PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 102 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi)/[2019] 261 Taxman 270 (Delhi)/[2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi) 3. ITO vs. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.4778/Del/2013) 4. Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT[2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. (361 ITR 258) 6. CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (18 taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 25…

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4