How many judgments cite CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.?

122 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (232 ITR 820), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 69, Section 69C, Section 133A.

CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.

232 ITR 820High Court1998#849 most cited

What is CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. authority for?

To discharge the onus under Section 68, an assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditor. Merely providing basic documentary evidence or a file number is insufficient; each credit entry requires a separate, detailed explanation.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. · 232 ITR 820 · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · identity genuineness creditworthiness · share capital · accommodation entry · mere furnishing PAN ITR insufficient · each entry explained separately

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69 Section 69C Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 106 creditworthiness of the creditor section 31 paper company source of source section 251(2)share capital and share premium section 251(1)(a)live link income tax settlement commission admission of additional evidence entry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Tarun Devcon Private Limited, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

ITA 18/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…rameters of identity, capacity and genuineness. The assessee was accordingly required by him to produce the said creditors, which it failed to. He, accordingly, relying on Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal); and CIT v. Precision Finance P. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal), assessed the said credits as the assessee’s income on account of unexplained credit u/s. 68 for want of necessary satisfaction toward the creditworthiness of the creditors. 2.2 In appeal, the assessee furnished the source of each of the several sums comprising the impugned cred…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…mings. MATHER & PLATT (INDIA) LTD v. CIT 168 ITR 493 CAL ITO v. KASHMIR IND. PALACE 99 TAXMANN (CHD)(MAG) RAMANANDSAGAR v DCIT 256 ITR 134 (BOM) CIT - I v. NANGALIA FABRICS (P) LTD (2013) 40 TAXMANN.COM 206 (GUJARAT) CIT v. KORLAY TRADING CO. LTD (1998) 232 ITR 820 (CAL) CIT v. BASANT INVESTMENT CORPORATION (1999) 238 ITR 680 (CAL) Transaction duly supported by the evidence, no evidence that cash received back. Addition cannot be made. CIT v. M K BROS (163 ITR 249) ITO v. KANCHANWALA GEMS 122 TTJ 854 Identity, source of payment explained, bank payment, books of account accepted, then addition of book e…

Bhagatram, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1063/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1062, 1063, 1064/Hyd/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 Sri Bhagatram, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Prop: Vijay Jewellers & Income Tax, Gems House, H. No. 5-9- Circle-5(1), 30/25, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 029. PAN: ACEPB 2866 M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1362, 1363, 1364/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2013-14, 2014-15 Sri Bhagatram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop: Vijay Jewellers & Ward-5(3), Gems House, H.No. 5-9- Hyderabad. 30/25, Basheerbagh, Hy…

Bhagatram, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1062/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

Bhagatram, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1364/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

Bhagatram, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1363/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

Bhagatram, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1362/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…gh Court in Shankar Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689, C. Kant & Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63, Oriental Wire Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 688, Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 & CIT vs. Korlay Trading Company Ltd. (1999) 232 ITR 820, by Orissa High Court in CIT Vs. B.C. Mohanty (1995) 212 ITR 199 and by Gauhati High Court in lalan Timbers Vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau.).In view of above, the entire burden is upon the assessee and the assessee has to prove the following three conditions:- 4 (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) capacity of such creditor to ,advance money & (…

ITO-27(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Krupa Scientific &Aappl. Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7513/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: R. Bhoopati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO-27(2)(1), Mumbai Krupa Scientific & AAPPL Co. 113/115, Shivam Vs. Industrial Estate, Govandi, Mumbai, Pin- 400088. PAN: AAAFK1899H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : R. Bhoopati, CIT-DR Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 07.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 17.10.2018 of the Comm…

ITO-27(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Paresh P. Paresh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7512/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: R. Bhoopathi, CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ies of bills, vouchers and other evidences to prove the genuineness of the purchases. However the reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO. Thus after relying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 232 ITR 820) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. La Medica 117 Taxman 628 (2001) added 100% on the said bogus purchases by framing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by partly sustaining the addition @12.5% of the bogus purchases after taking into account…

ITO-27(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pushpaben C Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ies of bills, vouchers and other evidences to prove the genuineness of the purchases. However the reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO. Thus after relying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 232 ITR 820) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. La Medica 117 Taxman 628 (2001) added 100% bogus purchases to the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.4,74,956/- by framing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the ad…

Mr Amrat B Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, W-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 5982/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaamrat B Prajapati Vs. Ito-19(1)(1) 2Nd Floor 8/10, Room No.15 Ganjawalla Building Matru Mandir Tardeo 2Nd Carpentar Street Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Akspp3697G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251Section 37(1)

…that a purchaser could be unable to furnish requisite information with respect to purchases made by it. 6.7 Initial burden to prove genuineness of purchases is on the appellant. The Hon'ble HC of Calcutta has held so in CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.) (HC). Sec.37 deals with the question relating to the allowability of the expenditure incurred for the purposes of business. The onus of proof is upon the assessee to prove each of the following ingredients - (a) the m of expenditure must not be of the nature described under sections 30 to 36 of the Act; (b) the item of expenditure must not…

ITO - 31 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narendra R. Bohra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6371/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer- 31(2)(4) V. Shri Narendra R. Bohra 105, C-13, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Prop. M/S. Veena Industries Bandra Kurla Complex 203, 2Nd Floor, Amar Business Centre Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan: Aaapb7696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Patni

For Appellant: Shri Suresh PatniFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…is settled law that onus lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of any expenditure which is claimed as deduction in computing its taxable income. "Prima facie onus to prove genuineness of purchases is on assessee." [CIT v. Korlay Trading Co Ltd (1998) 232 ITR 820(Cal.)(HC)]. Therefore, the onus in the present case squarely lies on the appellant to prove the genuineness of purchase The appellant has placed reliance on purchase invoices, and the bank statements reflecting the payments Except for purchase invoice, which itself is not found to be genuine as per information received from the DGIT(lnv ), Mumbai…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…sh identity of the creditor. capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the AO which is discharged if the assessee proves these three ingredients. The Hon'ble High Court Kolkata in CIT Vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) has held that mere filing of the income- tax file number of the creditors is not enough to prove the genuineness of the cash credit. The creditor should be identified. There should be creditworthiness_ There should be a genuine transaction. In K.M. Sadhukhan& Sons P. Ltd Vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal), it has been held that the burden lies…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Meerut

ITA 4623/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Circle-2, Educational & Social Meerut Welfare Trust, A-217, Defence Colony, Meerut Pan: Aahts6246H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 11Section 115Section 115BSection 12Section 68

…discharge the onus cast on it u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- I. CIT Vs. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal) 125 ITR 336 II. Basantipur Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 180 ITR 261 III. CIT v/s Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. IV. “Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249” V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VIII. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) IX. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) 2. Whe…

DCIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Edesk Services Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7113/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7113/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 6(2)(2) M/S. Edesk Services Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-A, Lalwani Indl. Estate M.K Road, Churchgate, 14, G.D. Ambekar Road, V. Mumbai 400020 Wadala, Mumbai 400031 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcb5087H

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…the assessee as to valuation of its 4 | P a g e I.T.A. No.7113/Mum/2016 CO. No.62/Mum/2018 ongoing business which is purchased by the assessee. The AO relied upon following judicial precedents to hold against the assessee : a) CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 232 ITR 820(Cal.) b) CIT v. Precision Finance Private Limited 208 ITR 465(Cal.) c) K.C.N.Chandrasekhar v. ACIT , 66 TTJ 355(ITAT Bangalore) d) CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Private Limited 187 ITR 596(Cal.) The AO observed that the assessee did not comply with the requisite details asked for during the course of assessment proceedings vide notice…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Gateway Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…nouncements that burden of proofs viz. identity of the creditor, his creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction u/s.68 are required to be discharged by the assessee only. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) held mere filing of Income Tax File No. of the creditors to prove genuineness of the cash credit. The creditor should be identified, the transaction should be genuine and there should be creditworthiness. The Ld. DR further submitted that in K.M. Sadhukhan and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies u…

M/S Bihari Lal Malpani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (Bench – “C”) BEFORE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment year 2013-14) M/s Bihari Lal Malpani ITO, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [PAN :ADUPM 6438 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 02.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 05.04.2019 ORDER Per M. Balaganesh: This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, Kolkata […

Surendra Kumar Khater, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessee are allowed

ITA 549/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…for the introduction of unaccounted money and hence we hold that no addition could be made in these circumstances. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Korlay Trading Co. Ltd reported in (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) wherein it was held :- "The assessee has given the name of the company, who issued the concerned shares, number of shares purchased, when purchased, for how much amount the same was purchased, when it was sold, for how much amount it was sold and through whom it was sold. Even the broker appeared before the ITO and prayed for time to produc…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…