M/s. Gajgamini Investments And Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

In the instant case, the Assessee has received and repaid certain loans during the assessment year under consideration from many parties as mentioned in para No.6.1 of the assessment order and therefore in order to verify, the Assessing Officer (AO) asked the Assessee to furnish complete details and explanation and supporting documents qua loans taken. In response, the Assessee submitted the details vide its submission dated 25.09.2019. The AO also issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to various parties including M/s. Concord Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Pewee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s. Hari Darshan Sales Pvt. Ltd.. The notice issued to M/s. Concord Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. has returned back and no detail had been filed to prove the genuineness of the transaction carried out with the Assessee by said company, but in the case of M/s. Hari Darshan Sales Pvt. Ltd. in response to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, it was stated that it had not done any transaction with the Assessee company. The AO therefore by taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, made the additions of Rs.65,36,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively qua Concord Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Hari Darshan Sales Pvt. Ltd. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid additions vide impugned order. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Assessee has repaid the outstanding amount of loan in the assessment year?
• 2. Whether the AO was justified in making the additions?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• M/s. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited vs. ACIT, Circle 24

• ITA No. 433/KOL/2024

  Kolkata bench

• The ACIT, Circle -7(1), New Delhi Vs M/s. Dayal Steel P. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Dismissed

• Mayurpankh Vincom Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward-13(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata benchAY 2011-2012 & 2012-2013Dismissed

• Venkateshwara Wires Pvt Ltd. vs. ACIT

  Jaipur bench

• Santosh Laujari Gupta Vs ITO – 33(3)(3)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2009-10Partly Allowed