Case LawHigh Court › Iapl/324/2017 Of Principal Commissioner...

Iapl/324/2017 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Meerut v. M/S Emm Vee Infrastructures India P. Ltd

High Court 03 Jan 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisdb_16012018
Parties
Iapl/324/2017 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Meerut v. M/S Emm Vee Infrastructures India P. Ltd
Date of order
03 Jan 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Iapl/324/2017 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Meerut v. M/S Emm Vee Infrastructures India P. Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The questions oflaw referred to in the present appeal are as under: "A.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITATerred in upholding the order of CIT(A) and in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- by ignoring the fact that the genuineness of the share capitalreceived...

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 324 of 2017 Appellant :- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax MeerutRespondent :- M/S Emm Vee Infrastructures (India) P. Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Manu Ghildyal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Present appeal has been filed by the Departmentunder Section 260-A of the Income tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against thejudgment and order dated 19.6.2017 in ITA No.4178/Del/2012 (Assessment year 2009-10)passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Delhi Bench "B", New Delhi. The questions oflaw referred to in the present appeal are as under: "A.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITATerred in upholding the order of CIT(A) and in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- by ignoring the fact that the genuineness of the share capitalreceived by the assessee was not proved and also the investor companieswere not in existence on the given address as proved by spot enquiry madeby the AO? B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITATerred in deleting the addition of share capital of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- byignoring the fact that the investor companies were only paper companiesproviding only book entries and the Directors of the company also failedto give any specific address of the company and to justify the investmentmade by them in assessee company?" We have heard learned standing counsel for theDepartment and Sri Suyash Agarwal, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent assessee. The tribunal has gone through the relevantrecords and recorded categorical findings. Thereis no doubt about the genuineness of the identitiesof the companies which were duly recorded in thebank account. In view of the findings recorded by the tribunal no question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2019samz
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