TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT

357 ITR 146High Court2013#294 most cited

What is TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT authority for?

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

272

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT · Assessing Officer burden of proof · no investigation by AO · addition unsustainable · deletion of addition · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 14ASection 80ICSection 69BSection 132(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 115adsection 153a proceedingssection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 60section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 131(1a)live linkretracted statementsection 80ic

Judgments citing TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT

Shri Vijay Arora, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3881/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2009-10 Sh. Vijay Arora Acit, Circle 1(1) C/O Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, Adv. Hsiidc Building Vs. Opp. Jain Mandir Vanijya Nikunj Main Bazar Udyog Vihar Ballabgarh Gurgaon Faridabad 121 004

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

…cular case all the necessary details, particulars of the creditors were furnished thereby discharging the onus. 20. The decisions relied upon by Ld.AR being decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 361 ITR 10, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlly reported in (2014) 366 ITR 232, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court-Jaipur Bench, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 217 are distinguishable on facts, as in all these cases, assessee therein provided most of the details regarding parties like PAN numbers, confirmation letters,…

ITO, WD-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodluck Merchants P Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Goodluck Merchants P. Ltd..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 10/4B, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcb 2011 L]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law. " 6.6. In the case of CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.) at para 6 held as follows. "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the ROC in relation to the share application, affidavits for the directors, form 2 filed wit…

ITO, WD-9(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law. " 6.6. In the case of CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.) at para 6 held as follows. "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including 16 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd certified copies issued by the ROC in relation to the shar…

ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Greeksoft Institute of Financial Market Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3969/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 68

…elhi) (b) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (ITA No.2182 of 2009 dated October 12, 2009 – 333 ITR 100) (c) CIT vs. P Mohanakala (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd (1991)(192 ITR 287)(Delhi) (e) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P Ltd (2014)(361 ITR 10)(Delhi) Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.370 lakhs made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. 10. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A). 11. The Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has received the impugned amount of Rs.370 lakhs from the companies controlled by Shrish Chandrakant Shah, who had admitted befor…

Shabd Prakash Lath, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 44ASection 68Section 80C

…ary to his claim. The Ld. AR submitted that no adversity was drawn without making any enquiry from creditors about the source of their funds. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del). The Ld. AR submitted that the loan was out of their own capital and was accepted in the returns, therefore, different view cannot be taken in the present case. The Ld. AR further submitted that no contrary material / adverse material was brought by the Assessing Officer for making such additions. The Ld.AR relied upon the decision of the Ho…

Anju Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1322/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

…f Sh. Manoj Kumar, no further addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, there were no basis to make the addition against the assessee. In support of above findings, we rely upon the following decisions: i. “CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 in which it was held that A.O. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition. ii. Decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 in which it was held as under: “If the share app…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaidka Woolen & Hossiery Mills P Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5302/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R

…ny, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. 27 ITA.No.5302/Del./2015 & C.O.No.409/Del./2015 M/s. Jaidka Woolen & Hosiery Mills P. Ltd., New Delhi. 25.1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 in which it was held that “A.O. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition.” 25.2. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd., & Ors. 361 ITR 220 (Del.) in which it was held as unde…

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5637/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahurajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-134, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. New Delhi Aaacr0366B Appellant Respondent

Section 68

…from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of assessee. Thus, no addition could be sustained against the assessee. In support of our findings, we rely upon following decisions: i. CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd. 357 ITR 146; ii. CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. & Ors., 361 ITR 220 (Del.); iii. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. 356 ITR 65 (MP); iv. CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del.); v. CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603; vi. CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.). 14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Advent Stock Management Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1647/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…bove. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law. " 6.6. In the case of CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.) at para 6 held as follows. "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the ROC in relation to the share application, affidavits for the directors, form 2 filed wit…

Raj Kumar Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1323/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

…h. Manoj Kumar, no further addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, there were no basis to make the addition against the assessee. In support of above findings, we rely upon the following decisions: i. “CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 in which it was held that A.O. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition. ii. Decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 in which it was held as under: “If the share app…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sutlej Agro Products Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…appeal to the High Court: Held, that considering the facts and circumstances of the case narrated by the Tribunal and the law explained by it, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.” 9.2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 in which it was held that A.O. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition. 9.3. Decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 in which it was held as under: ITA Nos.289 to…

Chandraprakash Paharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6442/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

…rove the case of the assessee. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the following case laws:-  CIT Vs. Varinder Rawlley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H)  CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj)  CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del)  DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 9. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished the financial statements and proved the source of the cash credits. He submitted that in the following cases, it has been held that the source of sources need not be proved by the assessee:- 5 Chandraprakash Paharia  Nemi Chand Kothari V…

Heatflex Cables Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2376/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…and assessed to tax and transactions are made through banking channel. The documentary evidences filed by assessee- company on record have not been rebutted by the A.O. in any manner. I rely upon the following decisions. 7.1. CIT vs. Fair Investment Ltd., 357 ITR 146 in which it was held that A.O. did not summon investors and did not make efforts. There is no finding that material disclosed was untrustworthy. The Appellate Authorities rightly deleted the addition. 7.2. Decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 in which it was held as under: “If the share…

Rakesh Footwears P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6994/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09 Rakesh Footwears P. Ltd., Ito, Ward- 21(1), D-1546, Dsidc, Narela, New Delhi. Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…e assessee to produce the 7 directors of the investor company before the Assessing Officer. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. M/s Goodview Trading Pvt. Ltd., ITA 377/2016. (ii) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 10. (iii) Parbhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.2523/Del/2015. (iv) Areceli Reality Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.6492/Mum/2016. (v) Moti Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.3133/Del/2018. 10. He accordingly submitted that the reassessment proceedings should be quashed and the additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) sho…

ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Elegant Creations P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5632/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer M/S Elegant Creations Pvt. Ltd. 12(2)(2), Room No. 146A, 701, Meenaxi Apt. Gokuldham, Vs. 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace5295L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vipul J. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del), Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100, CIT v. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del), CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 10 (Del), the Ld. M/s Elegant Creations Pvt. Ltd. 5 CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.3,85,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that the additional evidence was filed before the AO. The conclusion arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of such additional evidence may not…

M/S Bassi Steels Ltd., Mohali vs. DCIT, Mohali

ITA 96/CHANDI/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok GoelFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 148Section 68

…ssessee’s company. The Ld. AR submitted that he has provided copies of the ITR of the parties alongwith balance sheet. Before us the Ld. AR has relied on the following judgments: 1. CIT Vs. G.P. International Ltd. 186 Taxman 229 2. CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. 357 ITR 146 3. CIT Vs. Ganeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. 214 Taxman 423 4. CIT Vs. Five Vision Promoters (P) Ltd. Hon’ble Delhi High Court 5. CIT Vs. Vrindavan Farms(P) Ltd. Hon’ble Delhi High Court 6. CIT Vs. First Point Finance Ltd. 286 ITR 477 7. CIT Vs. LLIACE Investment (P) Ltd. 287 ITR 135 6. In the paper book he has submitted the copies of share application…

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

ITA/263/2018HC Delhi28 Feb 2018

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

Section 68

…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 onus lies upon the revenue to raise a ITA No.263/2018 Pag…

M/S. Shri Tirupati Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5114/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…v. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 392 ITR 82, where also the allegation was of accommodation entry from Tarun Goyal. (iii). CIT v. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 778 of 2015 of 2015 dated 13.10.2015. (iv). CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 146 ITA No. 5114/Del./2014 7 (v). CIT v. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 71, 72, 85/D/2015, vide order dated 12.08.2015 (vi). ITO v. Softline Creations (P.) Ltd. in ITA No. 744/Del/2012 dated 10.02.2015 which has been further upheld by the High Court in ITA No. 504/2016 dated 31.08.2016. (vii). DCIT v. AVS Investment Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5302/D…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 754/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Puri Construction Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T W-82/A, Greater Kailash - Ii Circle - 18 New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacp2760 K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan- CIT [DR]
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the material which we have already referred to above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law.” [Emphasis supplied] b) 357 ITR 146 (Del) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. “6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the CIT (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the…

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

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

ITA 1619/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

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.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…any, the share application money cannot be considered as unexplained 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…