Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 549 (4.56 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd on 15 February, 2012

Income Tax Officer (Gopal Lal ... vs Kedia Builders And Colonizers Private ... on 11 March, 2025

5. Supporting Judicial Precedents 5.1 Reassessment Valid Even If Original Addition Was Deleted • Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [(2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)]: New tangible material justifies reopening even if the issue was previously assessed. • CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. [(2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del.)]:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 117 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs Ito, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi on 9 August, 2019

In so far as reliance placed by the Ld. DR on various judgments specifically in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (supra) 35 and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters; and lastly, decision of CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. would not be applicable on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The deeming fiction u/s 68 is purely based on facts and explanations submitted by the assessee and if all the evidences duly support the nature and source of the credits alongwith explanation which has not been found to be incorrect or lack any substance, then without any adverse material brought on record to prove that evidences furnished by the assessee then deeming fiction cannot be invoked. The burden of the AO in such cases can only be discharged when he is able to bring some material on record to disprove the explanation and the evidences of the assessee and then he can tax such credit as deemed income. One of the reasons cited by the DR after referring to these judgments was that these companies were showing very meagre income or loss. In our opinion what is required to be seen is, whether these companies has sufficient source of funds duly disclosed in their balance sheet filed along with the income tax return which has been assessed and not disturbed and if the source of funds are disclosed in the books are sufficient to cover up the investments made by them, then whether they have shown lesser income will not lead to inference that they do not have creditworthiness or capacity to make investment. Here in the balance sheets of all the companies there are huge funds available from where they have made investments. It is only by way of inquiry if it is found that these companies are only providing any accommodation entry then a doubt can be created about the creditworthiness of these companies. But without any such prima facie inquiry or material on record to prove that availability of huge investments in their balance sheet are duly supported by source of funds, then it cannot be held that there is a lack of creditworthiness. In view of our detailed finding 36 given above, we hold that the reasoning given by the AO for sustaining the addition cannot be sustained and accordingly on merits the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 71 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Vidharbha Bahuudeshiya Shikshan ... on 19 February, 2026

ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in accepting that more receipt and repayment of loan through banking channel is not sufficient to establish that the unsecured loan transaction are genuine where lender is an established paper company with no business activity. The reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Nova Promoter Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc-1, Chandigarh on 7 February, 2020

Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at (2017) 395 ITR 692(Del) • V3S Infratech Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2019) 104 Taxmann.com 403(Del) • Rakesh Gupta Vs. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 213 (P&H) • Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani Vs. ACIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 311(Guj) • Smt. M.K. Rajeshwari Vs. ITO (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 339 • Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bom) • Udit Kalra Vs. ITO in ITA No. 220/19 order dt. 08/03/2019 (Del) • Rajnish Jain Vs. CIT (2018) reported at 402 ITR 12 (All) • Kantilal C. Shah Vs. ACIT reported at (2011) 133 ITR 57 (Ahd) • Hukum Chand Jain Vs. ACIT reported at (2011) 337 ITR 238(Chattisgarh HC) • Ms. Priyanka Chopra Vs. DCIT reported at (2018) 169 ITR 144(Mum Trib) • Bhagirath Agarwal Vs. CIT reported at (2013) 351 ITR 143(Del) 108 • Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral Vs. CIT reported at (2010) 327 ITR 424 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 179 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Amar Pratap Steels Private ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Jaipur, ... on 18 December, 2024

assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the Share Application Money received by it or has failed in discharging this onus. The information received from investigation wing and extract of statement of Shri Praveen Jain & others along with relevant material supplied to the assessee clearly explain the modus operandi of these bogus transaction. Ld. AO noted that the case laws cited by the assessee in its defense also do not help it being distinguishable on facts. Thus, ld. AO considering that statement of Mr. Jain and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court on similar facts in the case of CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) reported in 18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) made the addition in hands of the assessee as income of the assessee by invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act added share application of Rs. 1,70,02,500/- from above companies and was treated as non-genuine and bogus Share Application Money and was added to the total income of the assessee-company.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next