Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) (Review Petition)

NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) (Review Petition)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 4, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital/ premium: Application seeking open court oral hearing is rejected. There is no substance in the Review Petition seeking review of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) and the same is dismissed

Click here to download the main exparte order in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC)
Click here to download the order dismissing the application for recall of the exparte order
See also PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd (Bombay High Court) where NRA Iron & Steel was distinguished
See also: Taxability Of Bogus Share Capital U/s 68: Impact Of Supreme Court Judgment In NRA Iron & Steel 412 ITR 161

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________[Diary No(s). 41307/2019]
in C.A. No.2463/2019
NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1 Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Application seeking open court oral hearing is rejected.
There is delay of 228 days in filing the Review Petition.
However, considering the averments made in the application
seeking condonation, we condone the delay.
The basic issue as framed in para 3.4 of the Judgment
dated 05.03.2019 was considered in the light of the facts on
record. After noting the relevant decisions, the emerging
principles were set out in para 11, in the light of which the
facts were considered from para 12 onwards. Finally, the
conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer were found to be
correct and it was found that the lower Appellate Authorities
had erred in interfering with such conclusions. The Appeal
was, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the Assessing
2
Officer was restored.
We have gone through the contents in the Review Petition
and do not find any substance in the submissions raised
therein.
Consequently, this Review Petition is dismissed.
……………………J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT
……………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
NEW DELHI,
February 4,2020.
3
ITEM NO.1005 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.________ Diary No(s). 41307/2019 in
C.A. No.2463/2019
NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1 Respondent(s)
( IA No. 175951/2019 – APPLICATION FOR LISTING REVIEW PETITION IN
OPEN COURT
IA No. 175955/2019 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW
PETITION)
Date : 04-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
By Circulation
UPON perusing papers the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Review Petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)

Related Judgements

  1. PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    The practice of conversion of un-accounted money through the cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on the Assessee since the information is within…
  2. PCIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe the shares at such a premium or not. This was…
  3. Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO (Supreme Court) 

    The Commissioner of Income Tax had passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the observations that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share application money…
  4. Pee Aar Securities Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    As the things stand now, genuineness of transactions is to be examined in the light of the prevailing ground realities, and that is precisely what we have done. We are of the considered view that there is nothing to establish genuineness of the share subscription transactions on the facts…
  5. PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    The transactions in question were clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*