PCIT v. NDR Promoters Ltd.

Shivalik Cotex Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2007-08 Shivalik Cotex Limited, Vs. Ito, C-586, Lgf, Defence Colony, Ward-23(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaics3938E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Swaranendu Chatterjee & Ms Itisha Gulati, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order

…uent to hearing of the appeal by the CIT(A), the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court PCIT vs. NDR 3 Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 379 (Del) were pronounced. Neither the assessee nor the CIT(A) had the benefit of these decisions. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A)…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C 1 India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Before Shri G. D.Agrawal & Before Shri G. Before Shri G. D.Agrawal, D.Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Sainishri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Saini

…order of the Assessing Officer and he submitted that paper work is perfect in this case but no genuine transaction was carried out by the assessee. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Pvt.Ltd. – [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. – [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), CIT Vs. ITA-5852/Del/2014 & 5 others 12 MAF Academy P.Ltd. – [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. – [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi). 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C 1 India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Before Shri G. D.Agrawal & Before Shri G. Before Shri G. D.Agrawal, D.Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Sainishri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Saini

…order of the Assessing Officer and he submitted that paper work is perfect in this case but no genuine transaction was carried out by the assessee. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Pvt.Ltd. – [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. – [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), CIT Vs. ITA-5852/Del/2014 & 5 others 12 MAF Academy P.Ltd. – [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. – [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi). 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C 1 India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Before Shri G. D.Agrawal & Before Shri G. Before Shri G. D.Agrawal, D.Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Sainishri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Saini

…order of the Assessing Officer and he submitted that paper work is perfect in this case but no genuine transaction was carried out by the assessee. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Pvt.Ltd. – [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. – [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), CIT Vs. ITA-5852/Del/2014 & 5 others 12 MAF Academy P.Ltd. – [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. – [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi). 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Before Shri G. D.Agrawal & Before Shri G. Before Shri G. D.Agrawal, D.Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Sainishri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Saini

…order of the Assessing Officer and he submitted that paper work is perfect in this case but no genuine transaction was carried out by the assessee. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Pvt.Ltd. – [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. – [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), CIT Vs. ITA-5852/Del/2014 & 5 others 12 MAF Academy P.Ltd. – [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. – [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi). 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Before Shri G. D.Agrawal & Before Shri G. Before Shri G. D.Agrawal, D.Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Sainishri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Saini

…order of the Assessing Officer and he submitted that paper work is perfect in this case but no genuine transaction was carried out by the assessee. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Pvt.Ltd. – [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. – [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), CIT Vs. ITA-5852/Del/2014 & 5 others 12 MAF Academy P.Ltd. – [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. – [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi). 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the a…

Mannat Hospitality (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Mannat Hospitality (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer 325, Jagirit Enclave, Vs Ward – 16 (2) Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aagcm0506Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Repudaman Thakur, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2019 Order

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mannat Hospitality (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer 325, Jagirit Enclave, Vs Ward – 16 (2) Delhi-110092 New Delhi PAN No.AAGCM0506Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Repudaman Thakur, CA Respondent by Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr DR Date of hearing: 11/03/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 07/06/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.09.2018 of the CIT(A)-6, Delhi relating to A. Y. 2009-10.…

Lakshya Educational Trust, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…vered by the Decision of 24. Honourable Supreme court in case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V NRA iron & Steel Co Ltd [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC) and Honourable Delhi High court in PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V v. NDR PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Del). 25. In view of above facts we dismiss ground number 1 – 3 of the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A confirming the addition of INR 3,000,000 in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the income tax act as assessee has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender as well as the genuineness…

Mr Tarun Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…ITAT KOLKATA. iii) Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT, 2011(1) TMI 696-ITAT DELHI. iv) Prashant Aggarwal vs. ACIT, 2017(11) TMI 803-ITAT DELHI. v) Shri Vijen Jhaveri vs. ITO, ITA No.740/Ahd/2013, order dated 07.02.2017. vi) Pr. CIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 410 ITR 379. 7. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of group concerns of the assessee, vide consolidated order dated 26th April, 2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has adopted the commission income @ 0.5% of the deposit after excluding the intra group entries in the bank account in order to calculate the commission in…