CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities

68 ITR 708High Court1968#2892 most cited

What is CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities authority for?

Additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage only if the court deems it necessary for pronouncing its judgment or for substantial cause, not as a matter of right for the assessee. The mere importance of evidence does not justify its admission at the appellate stage if not produced before the AO.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Velji Deoraj and Co vs CIT · 68 ITR 708 · additional evidence appellate stage · onus on assessee · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · identity of creditor

Also reported as

9 Taxmann 179

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 31paper companysection 251(2)share capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 251(1)(a)live linkadmission of additional evidenceentry operatorshare application moneyaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ntal Wire Industries P Delhi Ltd. V CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 • CIT V Gangeshwari (Cal.) Metals Pvt Ltd (2013) 30 • Sikri & Co. Pvt Ltd V CIT taxmann.com 328 (1977) 106 ITR 682 (Cal.) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities • VeljiDeoraj& Co. V CIT (2011) 333 ITR 119 (1968) 68 ITR 708 (Bom.) (Delhi) • KM Sandhu & Sons Pvt Ltd V • ITO V Neelkanth CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal.) Finbuild ITA No. • CIT V Kerala Roadlines 2821/Del/2009 dated Corporation 01/04/2015 • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT • ITO V NC Cables Ltd 4122/Del/2009 • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P. Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisko Castings Pvt Ltd • CIT V Fair Finvest Ltd • CIT V…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ntal Wire Industries P Delhi Ltd. V CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 • CIT V Gangeshwari (Cal.) Metals Pvt Ltd (2013) 30 • Sikri & Co. Pvt Ltd V CIT taxmann.com 328 (1977) 106 ITR 682 (Cal.) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities • VeljiDeoraj& Co. V CIT (2011) 333 ITR 119 (1968) 68 ITR 708 (Bom.) (Delhi) • KM Sandhu & Sons Pvt Ltd V • ITO V Neelkanth CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal.) Finbuild ITA No. • CIT V Kerala Roadlines 2821/Del/2009 dated Corporation 01/04/2015 • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT • ITO V NC Cables Ltd 4122/Del/2009 • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P. Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisko Castings Pvt Ltd • CIT V Fair Finvest Ltd • CIT V…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ntal Wire Industries P Delhi Ltd. V CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 • CIT V Gangeshwari (Cal.) Metals Pvt Ltd (2013) 30 • Sikri & Co. Pvt Ltd V CIT taxmann.com 328 (1977) 106 ITR 682 (Cal.) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities • VeljiDeoraj& Co. V CIT (2011) 333 ITR 119 (1968) 68 ITR 708 (Bom.) (Delhi) • KM Sandhu & Sons Pvt Ltd V • ITO V Neelkanth CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal.) Finbuild ITA No. • CIT V Kerala Roadlines 2821/Del/2009 dated Corporation 01/04/2015 • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT • ITO V NC Cables Ltd 4122/Del/2009 • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P. Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisko Castings Pvt Ltd • CIT V Fair Finvest Ltd • CIT V…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Ramit Vohra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

…thenticity of the balances disclosed in the accounts. The burden to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions is indisputably on the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of VELJI DEORAJ & COMPANY (1968) 68 ITR 708 (Bom.) has held that the assessee's duty to prove that an unexplained entry in his account books does not represent undisclosed income is not discharged by merely showing that the entry appears in the account of third party and that the party in whose name the amount is credited is not a fictitious party but a real party but the assessee also has…

Shri Surinder Singh Deceased, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/ASR/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Nagpal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Negi (D.R.)
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)

…by the authority below (i.e., before whom it ought to have been furnished) for adducing the said evidence. This, then, explains the law in the matter. Reference in this context may also be made to the decisions, inter alia, in Velji Deoraj & Co. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 708 (Bom) and Kamal Ashish Singh v. ITO (in ITA No. 721/Asr/2017, dated 24/6/2019). The matter, accordingly, is to be considered from the stand-point of the requirement of the said report for deciding the instant appeal. The twin issues that emanate on the basis of the fact and circumstance of the case, are: (a) Whether the nature and the source of th…

Mohd. Imran, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 6741/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 44A

…, especially when the evidence was available to the party at the initial stage and had not been produced by him without any sufficient cause. Reliance is placed on the judgments CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. (Raj) 227 ITR 345, Velji Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT 4 (Bom.) 68 ITR 708, Jyotsna Suri vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 61 ITD 139, A.K. Babu Khan vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757, DCIT vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT, Mum TM) 61 ITD 33, Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT (All) 119 ITR 867.” 7. The CIT(A) did not accept the evidence filed before him on the ground that the assessee failed to explain why these documents and evidences were not filed…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner of A-25, MIDC Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. PAN No. AAIPS1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR Date of Hearing : 16/03/2018…

K.B. Mehta & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. K.B. Mehta & Co., Vs. Dcit Cen Cir 35 No.104, 1St Floor Ec-3010, R.No.104 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaafk1539J Appellant) .. Respondent) Ito 16(2)(4) Vs. M/S. K.B. Mehta & Co., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 1/B, Jariwala Mansion, Tardeo Road, 58/60, N.S.Patkar Marg Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk1539J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…n place at its premises?" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in taking cognizance of additional evidence which was not produced during the assessment proceedings as laid down in case of Velji Deoraj & , Co V/s CIT 68 ITR 708 (Bom) by Hon. Bombay High Court which clarifies that, ". mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced is vital and important does not provide a substantial cause to allow its admission at the appellate stage, especially when the evidence was available to the party at the initial stage" 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances'and in law, th…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 17(2)(iv)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘J’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Ravish Sood, JM ITA No.7652/Mum/2014 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ A-25, MIDC Street No.3 Circle 20(3) Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (East) Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai – 400 093. PAN : AAIPS1238A. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Arju Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement :…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…tunity under clause (3) of the said Rule. Reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Vali Mohmed Ahamad Bhai (Guj.) 134 ITR 214 ACIT Vs. Mohar Singh (IT AT, Jd.) 32 DTR 497 CIT Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd, (Raj.) 227 ITR 345 Velji Deoraj & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 68 ITR 708 Jyotsna Suri Vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 61ITD 139 Page 3 of 34 A.K.Babu Khan Vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757 DCIT Vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT,Mum, TM) 61 ITD 33 Ramprasad Sharma Vs. CIT (All.)119 ITR 867 Dinesh B. Parikh Vs. CIT (Cal) 202 Taxman (Mag) 110 (6) That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/or delete any ground(s) of appeal. (7) In the…

Rajaram B.Borana, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(3(3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6564/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. S.M. Bandi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kumar,DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…and important does not provide a substantial cause to allow its admission at the appellate stage especially when the evidence was available to the party at the initial stage and was not produced by him It has been held so in Velji Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 708, 713-14 (Bom); Keshav Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365,381 (SC); Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. vs. H.B. Munshi (1968) 21 STC 383 (SC) and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. (1994) 94 STC 410, 417-18 (SC) . The assessees who are guilty of 10 remissness and gross negligence are not entitled to indulgence being shown…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

The ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. Lml Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 1261/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././I.T.A./ 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Thomas Cook (India) Limited Dcit-1 (3)(2) Thomas Cook Building Mumbai. Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort,Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaact 4050 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand-Cit Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Orders Dated 08.12.2014 & 24.12.2014 Of Cit(A)-58 & Of The Assesssing Officer(Ao),The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.).Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Tour Operator,Travel Agent & Is Also An Authorised Dealer In Foreign Exchange.The Details Of Filing Of Returns,Returned Incomes,Assessed Incomes Etc.Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders Of Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Cit(A)/Ao 2009-10 30.09.2009 44,28,33,999/- 28/03/2013 46,8432,558/- 08.12.2014 2010-11 30.09.2010 37,15,77,109/- 16/01/2015 57,86,82,443/- 16.01.2015

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 254(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य के सम" के सम" सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य के सम" के सम" Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././I.T.A./ 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Thomas Cook (India) Limited DCIT-1 (3)(2) Thomas Cook Bu…

Baijnath Maniram, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 14(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7584/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7584/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Baijnath Maniram Holding & Finance Addl. Cit, Range-14(3), बनाम/ Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 51-53, Mittal Court, A Wing, Vs. Nairman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefb 8365 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 25.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.10.2011, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008- 09 Vide Order Dated 16.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Raises The Following Grounds, Which We Shall Take Up In Seriatim:

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)

…ear of its’ write off as bad debt in the books of account. We, accordingly, find no reason to admit the same at this stage. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Velji Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 708 (Bom). With regard to the third limb, i.e., per Ground 4(iii), the same is in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A. The A.O. has admittedly applied rule 8D, mandatory for the current year, the relevant working of which (break up here-in-below) appears at para 5.4 of his order: Break-up of Disallowance as per Rule 8D Amount (Rs.) A) Direct Expenses 3,4…

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 153A

…self obliges the tribunal to record reasons for such admission or, as the case may be, production or examination. The tribunal’s power to admit additional evidence is strictly limited. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Velji Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 708 (Bom) clarified that the admission of additional evidence is made to depend not on the relevancy or materiality but upon the fact whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence to enable it to pronounce the order or for any other substantial cause. Further, the mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced is vital and important does…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi Aaacc1072F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the provisions of Rule 46A have to be followed. As noted above, the facts of this case fail to fulfill the requirements of Rule 46A. 7 Reliance is placed on the case laws cited below: 7.1 In the case of Velji Deoraj & Co .v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1968] 68 ITR 708 (BOM.) The High Court of Bombay held that mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced is vital and important does not provide a substantial cause to allow its admission at appellate stage especially when evidence was available to party at initial stage and had not been produced by him. 7.2 In the case of C. Unnikrishnan v. Commissioner of In…

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2065 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…e the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the production of such vital documents. That leaves for consideration the decision in *Velji Deoraj and Co. Vs CIT* (1968) 68 ITR 708 (Bom.). In that case while exercising its discretion, the Tribunal found that the additional evidence was unnecessary and, therefore, the refusal by the Tribunal to allow additional evidence was held to be neither illegal nor improper." 10. Second case relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is the decision of this Court in R. Dalmia…

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2061 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…e the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the production of such vital documents. That leaves for consideration the decision in *Velji Deoraj and Co. Vs CIT* (1968) 68 ITR 708 (Bom.). In that case while exercising its discretion, the Tribunal found that the additional evidence was unnecessary and, therefore, the refusal by the Tribunal to allow additional evidence was held to be neither illegal nor improper." Second case relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is the 10. decision of this Court in R. Dalmia…