STRYTON EXIM INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 may be invoked. That the assessee under consideration by producing lots of evidence as stated above has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.(Emphasis Supplied) Legal Precedence That the appellant further, in support of his contention, places reliance on the following judgments:- CIT vs. Value Capital Services

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. NAZAR TRADING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. NAZAR TRADING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. NAZAR TRADING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. NAZAR TRADING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred

ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. NAZAR TRADING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2992/Del/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 2993/Del/2012 (A.Y 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2994/Del/2012 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 2995/Del/2012 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 2996/Del/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 2997/Del/2012 (A.Y 2009-10)

192 ITR 287 (Delhi), the Income-tax Officer had accepted the increased subscribed share capital. Section 68 of the Act was not referred