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 366,339 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.

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Meenakshi Bamalwa Soni, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Usha Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Hans Raj Bamalwa (HUF), Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 56/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

D.C.I.T., Circle- 1, Dibrugarh vs. Hans Raj Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 55/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bachh Raj Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bachh Raj Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 52/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ious pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and credit worthiness of the creditor [see CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del)]. Once the Assessee proves the ingredients of Sec.68 by establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions involved, then the onus of the Assessee u/s 101 r/w Sec.102 and Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged and the said burden thus shifts back to the Assessing Officer, to effectively rebut the ev…

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6040 & 6120/MUM/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Forever Flourishing Fin. & DCIT(CC)-3(4), Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(4), Room No. Vs. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Off J P 1915, 19th floor, Air India Road, Dawood Baug Lane, Building, Nariman Point, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400058. PAN NO. AAACF 4311 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay Daga Revenue by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 13/07/2023 Date o…

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6040 & 6120/MUM/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Forever Flourishing Fin. & DCIT(CC)-3(4), Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(4), Room No. Vs. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Off J P 1915, 19th floor, Air India Road, Dawood Baug Lane, Building, Nariman Point, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400058. PAN NO. AAACF 4311 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay Daga Revenue by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 13/07/2023 Date o…

ACIT(Central)-2, Indore vs. Shri Aakash Shukla, Indore

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 43/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-1 Shri Aakash Shukla Indore 94, Banganga Main Road Vs. Indore

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 148Section 68

…ogent evidences has been brought on record by the Id. AO in support of his findings. The ld. A.O should have acted on the details furnished by the appellant, but he did not do so. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. reported in 333 ITR 119(2011) has held as under: Page 6 of 14 Aakash Shukla Page 7 of 14 "11. It is clear from the above that the initial burden is upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the share application money received by the assessee. In order to discharge this burden, the assessee is required to prove: (a) Identity of shareholder: (b) Genuineness…

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4595/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh K. Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 4595/Del/2018 : Asstt. Years: 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd, Circle-25(1), C-20, Pamposh Enclave, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACT2658N Assessee by : Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh K. Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3…

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…h should have been made. On perusal of the order in the present case the ld. CIT has taken action u/s 263 only on the assumption and presumption that the no inquiry has been made by the AO on the issues and not verified. Kindly refer CIT v/s Paras Cotton Co. 288 ITR 211(Raj.) where held that CIT could not have acted on mere assumption. Mere suspicion cannot take place of proof and the order of CIT u/s 263 cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that proceedings under s. 263 cannot be taken on the ground that the AO has not made sufficient enquiry. The learned PR. CIT can assume jurisdiction if there has be…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4038/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3117/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ITR 254(2003) Gauhati HC Another CIT Vs Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 Bombay HC CIT Vs Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Orient Trading Co Ltd Vs CIT 49 ITR 723 Bombay HC CIT Vs Creativ…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ITR 254(2003) Gauhati HC Another CIT Vs Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 Bombay HC CIT Vs Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt 367 ITR 217 Allahabad HC Ltd (2014) CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt Ltd 330 ITR 298 Delhi HC (2011) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalitites P LTd 333 ITR 119 Delhi HC 35 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 361 ITR 220 Delhi HC CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 299 ITR 268 Supreme Court PCIT Vs Veedhata Tower P Ltd 403 ITR 415 Bombay HC Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs ITO 423 ITR 531 Bombay HC Orient Trading Co Ltd Vs CIT 49 ITR 723 Bombay HC CIT Vs Creativ…

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…arch, 202 16. Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) 17. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 18. CIT v/s Paras Cotton Co. 288 ITR 211(Raj.) 19. Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 20. CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) 8 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and stated that the AO has not done proper and detailed inquiry, verification and examination which was…

DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Landmark Realty, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3954/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…icer was not justified in making the additions under section 68 of the Act in both the years. In this regard, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Private Limited (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del). 9. The Learned AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has relied upon some third party information in order to come to the conclusion that the loan taken from M/s Centre Point Gems P Ltd was not genuine. He submitted that the surrender, if any, made by some third party cannot be a ground to suspect otherwise genuine transaction.…