Case LawHigh Court › Iapl/278/2016 Of Principal Commissioner...

Iapl/278/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Agra v. M/S. A.v.m. Cycle Manufacturersp Ltd

High Court 30 Jul 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisdb_16012018
Parties
Iapl/278/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Agra v. M/S. A.v.m. Cycle Manufacturersp Ltd
Date of order
30 Jul 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Iapl/278/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Agra v. M/S. A.v.m. Cycle Manufacturersp Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as above.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

Court No. - 35 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 278 of 2016 Appellant :- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax AgraRespondent :- M/S. A.V.M. Cycle Manufacturersp Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish AgrawalCounsel for Respondent :- Rahul Agarwal,Rahul Agarwal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. (By Hon.Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Heard Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel forthe appellant and Sri Rahul Agarwal assisted byMs. Diksha Rastogi for the respondent . The present appeal has been filed by the Department under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act against the order dated 11.12.2015 forthe assessment year 2011-12. The followingsubstantial questions of law are sought to beanswered: (A) Whether the addition of Rs.4,14,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act wasliable to be deleted despite the fact that theaforesaid amount was received by the investorcompany only a day before and was invested inthe share capital of the assessee companycausing a doubt about the credit worthiness ofthe investor company?" From the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that there are concurrentfindings recorded by the Tribunal and theassessee was able to prove and establish beyonddoubt in the manner in which all the transactionswere found to be genuine. In view of the findings of fact recorded and,accordingly, in view of the law also, thetransactions were found to be genuine, which could not be turned down, which was rightlydeleted. The question of law is, therefore, answered infavour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is dismissed as above. No costs. Order Date :- 30.7.2019AKJ
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan