Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Need; Son’s Residence In Delhi No Ground To Deny Eviction For Hotel Project: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Eviction Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Grant-In-Aid Related Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Writ Appeal in Lecturer Promotion Case Educational Institutions Have No Lien Over Students' Future: Rajasthan High Court Slams Withholding of Certificates for Fee Recovery Mere Allegation of Forged Revenue Entries Not Enough to Disturb Settled Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea for Injunction Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court

No Substantial Question of Law Arises From ITAT’s Factual Analysis: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeals in Bogus Share Capital and Unexplained Cash Transactions Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling dated May 2, 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed multiple appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s GTM Builder and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. And its associated entities. The appeals under scrutiny pertained to the alleged bogus share application money, unexplained cash transactions, and investments related to real estate and cooperative societies.

The court determined that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had adequately addressed the factual intricacies of the case, resulting in a dismissal of the appeals as no substantial questions of law were provoked.

The heart of the contention involved questions over the authenticity and creditworthiness of share application money amounting to over Rs. 5 crores, as well as unexplained cash payments in real estate transactions and investments in cooperative societies. The ITAT’s detailed analysis led to the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under various sections of the Income Tax Act.

The ITAT, supported by documentary evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, negated the AO’s additions. The High Court noted, “The ITAT’s findings on the lack of corroborative evidence support the additions under the Income Tax Act.”

The High Court concurred with the ITAT that the AO had not substantiated claims of unexplained cash payments. The Tribunal had found that no corroborative material was presented to back the AO’s assertions.

Allegations of undisclosed income from transactions involving cooperative societies were dismissed by the ITAT, which found no substantial evidence linking cash payments to the respondents. The High Court endorsed this view, emphasizing the Tribunal’s dismissal of the Revenue’s theoretical presumptions.

The High Court affirmed the ITAT’s decision, concluding that the Tribunal’s conclusions were based on a comprehensive factual analysis and a correct application of the law, leaving no room for substantial legal questions.

 Date of Decision: May 2, 2024

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 3 Vs. M/s GTM Builder and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Tushar Kumar, Sargam Estates Pvt. Ltd

Latest Legal News