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.

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…al assessment order. 6.1. 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. 17 ITA 20/JP/2021_ Sh. Ashutosh Bhargava Vs Pr.CIT 6.1 In C IT V/s Girdhari Lal 258 ITR 331(Raj.) it has been held,“When the Assessing Officer after going through the material on record an…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…further exercise. The Court after noting the legal position had examined the facts of the case, the modus operandi and 96 (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 196 97 (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 330 (SC) 98 (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 125 of 150 allowed the appeal filed by the revenue. This decision was followed in PCIT Versus Prabha Jain 99. 88. The facts in NDR Promoters Private Limited are more or less similar to that of the cases on hand, identical objection was raised by the assessee with regard to the non-prod…

Ramesh Chand Investment & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. ACIT, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. PAN:AACCR3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st March,2013 of the CIT(A)-18, New…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 95/IND/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…. (2014) 264 CTR 277 (Del HC) - M/s. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (I.T.A. no. 4353/Del/2016) - M/s. Devansh Exports Vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No. 2178/Kol/2017) - Moti Adhesive P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3133/Del/20I8) - CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del HC) - CIT Vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del HC) - Sarthak Securities Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi HC) - Deeparaj Hospital (P)Ltd. Vs. ITO, 41/Agra/2017 dt. 01.06.2018 (Agra Trib) - ITO Vs. Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mum) (Trib) 12 M/s. Shivalika Realities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.95 & 94/Ind/2018 . - PCIT Vs. RMG…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 94/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…. (2014) 264 CTR 277 (Del HC) - M/s. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (I.T.A. no. 4353/Del/2016) - M/s. Devansh Exports Vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No. 2178/Kol/2017) - Moti Adhesive P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3133/Del/20I8) - CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del HC) - CIT Vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del HC) - Sarthak Securities Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi HC) - Deeparaj Hospital (P)Ltd. Vs. ITO, 41/Agra/2017 dt. 01.06.2018 (Agra Trib) - ITO Vs. Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mum) (Trib) 12 M/s. Shivalika Realities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.95 & 94/Ind/2018 . - PCIT Vs. RMG…

JCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Prasandi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4647/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 68

…nal on the basis of the accepted authorities and the normal protocol for share capital verification as provided in the judgments of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268, CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Private Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119(Del), CIT Vs. Kamadhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220(Del) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 157(Mag.)(Del). In order to cull the requirement envisaged u/s 68 of the Act for the acceptance of the credit, the Apex Court went by the time honoured authorities in Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Rosh…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad vs. Maithili Financials Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1656/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Maithili Financials Ward – 16(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccm 4074 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…mention that the decision relied by the Ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee are distinguished in the case CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited reported in 350 ITR 407 (Del.), CIT vs. OASIS Hospitalities Private Limited reported in 333 ITR 119 (Del.) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT reported in 386 ITR 162 (Kal.) wherein it was held that “where the assessee has invested in private limited companies higher burden is on the assessee to explain the source of the assessee’s investment”. In the case of the assessee, it is also not explained as to why the assessee has paid the…

Smt. Ruksana, Jhalawar vs. ITO, Ward, Jhalawar

ITA 192/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 192/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/h of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BJEPS 1293 M Appellant Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

M/S Namdhari Industrial Traders Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 917/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Mukhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the Hon'ble P&H in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi Vs. CIT [1998] 171 ITR 532 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119, have held that the initial onus is upon the assessee to establish the entity of the investor, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Since the assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus in this case the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the action of the A.O. Further the Ld. DR submitted that in the case of CIT Vs. N.P…

Kasper Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-14(2), New Delhi

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…

ITO Ward - 14(2), New Delhi vs. Kasper Information Technology Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…

ITO Ward - 13(3), New Delhi vs. Jingle Bells Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5527/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…

Jingle Bells Aluminium, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 13(3), New Delhi

ITA 5397/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…

Kasper Information Technology P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), New Delhi

ITA 510/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…

Landsky Real Estates P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), New Delhi

ITA 509/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…

ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delight Resorts P.Ltd, Ghaziabad

ITA 6401/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…

ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delight Resorts P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 5974/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • MOD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V ITO [(2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)] • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Others [(2012) 206 taxman 254 (Delhi)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] • ITO V Rakam Money Matters P Ltd 2821/Del/2011 • ACIT V Kisco castings Pvt Ltd 34 taxmann.com 37 • CIT V Fivest Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd (333 ITR 119 Delhi) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)  As per inspector’s report no  CIT(A) has made analysis of 13. Sukhna 2012-13 Secti…