{"id":21580,"date":"2020-02-12T12:04:30","date_gmt":"2020-02-12T06:34:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=21580"},"modified":"2020-02-12T12:04:30","modified_gmt":"2020-02-12T06:34:30","slug":"nra-iron-steel-pvt-ltd-vs-pcit-supreme-court-review-petition-s-68-bogus-share-capital-premium-application-seeking-open-court-oral-hearing-is-rejected-there-is-no-substance-in-the-review-petition-s","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/nra-iron-steel-pvt-ltd-vs-pcit-supreme-court-review-petition-s-68-bogus-share-capital-premium-application-seeking-open-court-oral-hearing-is-rejected-there-is-no-substance-in-the-review-petition-s\/","title":{"rendered":"NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) (Review Petition)"},"content":{"rendered":"
Click here to download the main exparte order in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd<\/a> (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC)<\/div>\n
Click here to download the order dismissing the application for recall of the exparte order<\/a><\/div>\n
See also PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd<\/a> (Bombay High Court) where NRA Iron & Steel was distinguished<\/div>\n
See also: Taxability Of Bogus Share Capital U\/s 68: Impact Of Supreme Court Judgment In NRA Iron & Steel 412 ITR 161<\/a><\/div>\n

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
\nINHERENT JURISDICTION
\nREVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________[Diary No(s). 41307\/2019]
\nin C.A. No.2463\/2019
\nNRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
\nVERSUS
\nPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1 Respondent(s)
\nO R D E R
\nApplication seeking open court oral hearing is rejected.
\nThere is delay of 228 days in filing the Review Petition.
\nHowever, considering the averments made in the application
\nseeking condonation, we condone the delay.
\nThe basic issue as framed in para 3.4 of the Judgment
\ndated 05.03.2019 was considered in the light of the facts on
\nrecord. After noting the relevant decisions, the emerging
\nprinciples were set out in para 11, in the light of which the
\nfacts were considered from para 12 onwards. Finally, the
\nconclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer were found to be
\ncorrect and it was found that the lower Appellate Authorities
\nhad erred in interfering with such conclusions. The Appeal
\nwas, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the Assessing
\n2
\nOfficer was restored.
\nWe have gone through the contents in the Review Petition
\nand do not find any substance in the submissions raised
\ntherein.
\nConsequently, this Review Petition is dismissed.
\n……………………J.
\n(UDAY UMESH LALIT
\n……………………J.
\n(INDU MALHOTRA)
\nNEW DELHI,
\nFebruary 4,2020.
\n3
\nITEM NO.1005 SECTION XIV-A
\nS U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
\nRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
\nREVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.________ Diary No(s). 41307\/2019 in
\nC.A. No.2463\/2019
\nNRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
\nVERSUS
\nPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1 Respondent(s)
\n( IA No. 175951\/2019 – APPLICATION FOR LISTING REVIEW PETITION IN
\nOPEN COURT
\nIA No. 175955\/2019 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW
\nPETITION)
\nDate : 04-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
\nCORAM :
\nHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
\nHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
\nBy Circulation
\nUPON perusing papers the Court made the following
\nO R D E R
\nThe Review Petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
\nPending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
\n(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN)
\nCOURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
\n(Signed order is placed on the file)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court","judges-indu-malhotra-j","judges-uday-umesh-lalit-j","section-368","counsel-499","court-supreme-court","catchwords-bogus-share-capital","catchwords-bogus-share-premium","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}