CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd.

333 ITR 119High Court2011#268 most cited

What is CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. authority for?

When explaining cash credits under Section 68, the assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness or financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transaction. Merely proving identity does not discharge this initial onus, which shifts to the Assessing Officer once these three elements are prima facie proven.

292

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. · Section 68 · Income Tax Act 1961 · cash credits · onus of proof · identity creditworthiness genuineness · share application money · paper company · shifting onus

Also reported as

198 Taxmann 247238 CTR 4029 Taxmann.com 1792011 SCC OnLine DEL 506

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 133(6)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 132Section 69C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

paper companycreditworthiness of the creditorshare capital and share premiumsource of sourcesection 31section 251(2)share application moneyentry operatorsection 251(1)(a)addition u/s 68live linkadmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd.

Suman Lata, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Noida

In the result, the case remanded back to CIT(A)

ITA 4919/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Yr: 2012-13

Section 68

…ineness of the transaction. In this regard, reliance is further placed on the decisions of CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers P. Ltd.-350 ITR 407(Del); CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. -342 ITR 169 (Del.); CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. -333 ITR 119 (Del.): Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT-386 ITR 162 (Cal)]. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48/262 Taxman 74/412 ITR 161 (SC). The Court gave out its verdict on 05th March…

Mohammed Shoeb Aziz Haque Khan, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-5, Vapi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 952/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.952/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Mohammad Shoeb Aziz Haque Khan, Vs. Ito, B-22, Behind Amba Mata Temple, Ward – 5, Koparli Road, Gunjan, Vapi - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adtpk8300R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

…the cash credit found in his books of account, therefore, AO, relying upon the decisions given in the case of ‘Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Hi Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) and CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.), treated the unsecured loans of Rs.3,39,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 ITA No.952/SRT/2024/AY 2011-12 Mohammad Shoeb Aziz Haque Khan of the Act. As per the bank statement, the assessee had received interest on savings bank account amounting to Rs.9,760/-, however, assessee had offered interest income of Rs.5,904/- only in his r…

Sanjay Singal (HUF), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…efer J.J. Enterprises vs CIT254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs ITO: 92 ITD 85 (Asr)(SB), Faqir Chand Chaman Lai vs ACIT : (2004) 1 SOT 914(Asr.) (Appeal dismissed 23 by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR), CIT vs Paras Cotton Co: 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] 33. In the present case, the entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on merely conjectures and surmises, without any tangible material being brought on record to controvert the cogent documentary, contemporaneous material/ evidences placed on record by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has proceeded solely on assumptions and pres…

Sanjay Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…efer J.J. Enterprises vs CIT254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs ITO: 92 ITD 85 (Asr)(SB), Faqir Chand Chaman Lai vs ACIT : (2004) 1 SOT 914(Asr.) (Appeal dismissed 23 by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR), CIT vs Paras Cotton Co: 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] 33. In the present case, the entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on merely conjectures and surmises, without any tangible material being brought on record to controvert the cogent documentary, contemporaneous material/ evidences placed on record by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has proceeded solely on assumptions and pres…

Aniket Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…efer J.J. Enterprises vs CIT254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs ITO: 92 ITD 85 (Asr)(SB), Faqir Chand Chaman Lai vs ACIT : (2004) 1 SOT 914(Asr.) (Appeal dismissed 23 by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR), CIT vs Paras Cotton Co: 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] 33. In the present case, the entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on merely conjectures and surmises, without any tangible material being brought on record to controvert the cogent documentary, contemporaneous material/ evidences placed on record by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has proceeded solely on assumptions and pres…

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…efer J.J. Enterprises vs CIT254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs ITO: 92 ITD 85 (Asr)(SB), Faqir Chand Chaman Lai vs ACIT : (2004) 1 SOT 914(Asr.) (Appeal dismissed 23 by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR), CIT vs Paras Cotton Co: 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] 33. In the present case, the entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on merely conjectures and surmises, without any tangible material being brought on record to controvert the cogent documentary, contemporaneous material/ evidences placed on record by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has proceeded solely on assumptions and pres…

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…efer J.J. Enterprises vs CIT254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs ITO: 92 ITD 85 (Asr)(SB), Faqir Chand Chaman Lai vs ACIT : (2004) 1 SOT 914(Asr.) (Appeal dismissed 23 by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR), CIT vs Paras Cotton Co: 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] 33. In the present case, the entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on merely conjectures and surmises, without any tangible material being brought on record to controvert the cogent documentary, contemporaneous material/ evidences placed on record by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has proceeded solely on assumptions and pres…

M/S Deeps Special Steels Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Alwar

ITA 1016/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Ojha, CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 50C

…Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Himani M. Vakil 227-228 228 reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 425 (Gujarat) 26 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Udit Narain Agrawal 229-233 232-233 reported in [2013] 31 tasmann.com 76 (Allahabad) 27 CIT v. Paras Cotton Co [(2007) 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] The claim cannot 234-239 be rejected on 28 Faqir Chand Chaman Lal v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 basis of suspicion 240-242 242 only (Asr.)] 29 Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)] 243-250 242 30 CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR Addition cannot 251-253 253 422 (Calcutta High Court) be made on 31 Asstt. CIT v…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S. Shrish Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 5315/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…(AY: 2018-19) To the same effect are the following decisions: • CIT v Antartica Investment (P) Ltd. 262 ITR 493 (Del) • CIT v. Dolphin Canpack Ltd.: 283 ITR 190 (Del.) • CIT v. Iliac Investment (P) Ltd.: 287 ITR 135 (Del.) • CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd: 333 ITR 119 (Del.) • CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd: 361-ITR 220 (Del.) • CIT v. Victor Electodes Ltd.: 329 ITR 271 (Del.) • CIT v. Vacmet Packaging India (P) Ltd.: 367 ITR 217 (All.) • CIT v. Arunanada Textiles P. Ltd: 333 ITR 116 (Kar) • CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.: 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom) The ratio, thus, emanating from the aforesaid…

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…er of an evidence. The assessee cannot be taxed and penalized just on the basis of suspicion in the mind of the AO. Reliance in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) ii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) iii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section…

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…er of an evidence. The assessee cannot be taxed and penalized just on the basis of suspicion in the mind of the AO. Reliance in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) ii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) iii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section…

Shri Satish Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…er of an evidence. The assessee cannot be taxed and penalized just on the basis of suspicion in the mind of the AO. Reliance in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) ii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) iii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 1…

Mallya Real Estates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…nance Lease Pvt Limited 342 ITR 169 (Del); by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Nivendan Vanijya Niyojay Limited; by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Divine Leasing and Finance Limited (supra) and CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd 333 ITR 119. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finance Lease Pvt Limited 342 ITR 169 (Del), which was approvingly quoted in NDR Promoters (supra) by the Supreme Court, on similar facts had held that- "the finding that the share application monies have come through account payee cheques is, at best, neutral. The questio…

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan vs. Shri Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Rander

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

…K. M. Sadhukhan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 239 ITR 77 (Cal.), CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (Orissa), CIT vs. Kishorilal & Santhoshilal, 216 ITR 9 (Raj.), A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807, CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd., 333 ITR 119 (Del.) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC). He held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on the assessee. When the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, the revenue can hold that it was income of the assessee. Further, merely providing the iden…

ACIT, Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Adhist Garment Export Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम Acit, Adhist Garment Export Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-15, Vs. 48, Todarmal Road, Room No.353, Ara Centre, Bengali Market, New Delhi. Jhandewalan, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafca1526P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

…ITA No.1387/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम ACIT, ADHIST GARMENT EXPORT PVT. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, Vs. 48, TODARMAL ROAD, ROOM NO.353, ARA CENTRE, BENGALI MARKET, NEW DELHI. JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI. PAN No. AAFCA1526P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Gautam Swaroop, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 28.05.2025 25.06.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C…

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…of deposit but could not establish nature thereof, three conditions required to be proved by assessee as per section 68 could not be proved and thus, addition made was justified. 11. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 119 (Delhi), held that the initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i)identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. The department's exercise starts only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, by the a…

Avt Homes Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 145Section 68

…ITR 550<br>PCIT v Manoj Kumar Vipin<br>Kumar (Rajasthan HC)/[2022]<br>441 ITR 632<br>PCIT V. Kautilya Monetary<br>Services<br>(P)<br>Ltd.<br>(ITA<br>602/2019<br>dated<br>10.07.2019)<br>HC (Delhi)<br>Pr. CIT vs M/s N.C. Cables<br>Ltd. ITA No. 335/2015 (Del)<br>333 ITR 119 (Del) CIT vs.<br>Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------…

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…at the assessee is required to establish the identity. prove the genuineness of the transaction and establish the creditworthiness of the donor, has been reiterated in the decision of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)(2011). In this case it was held by the Hon. Court that "The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are establis…

Smt. Ginny Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 705/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…dence. The assessee cannot be taxed and penalized just on the basis of suspicion in the mind of the AO. Reliance in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) ii) iii) iv) v) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Мит.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a…

Smt. Ginny Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 704/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…dence. The assessee cannot be taxed and penalized just on the basis of suspicion in the mind of the AO. Reliance in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) ii) iii) iv) v) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Мит.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a…