How many judgments cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.?

897 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 131, Section 148.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78Supreme Court of India1986#53 most cited

What is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

897

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orissa Corporation · 159 ITR 78 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · burden of proof · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · non-compliance of summons · share capital · Section 131 · Section 133(6) · adverse inference

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor share capital and share premium paper company share application money addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 genuineness of the transaction section 131 section 133(6)entry operator unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…..........Appellant 86C, Viswakarma, 1St Floor, Topsia Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 [Pan:Aakcs8704L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent Ward-11(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 18Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 6Th , 2024 O R D E R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 68

…be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere…

Ashwini Kumar Taneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(3), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…80 (Pun. & Har.) • Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) • Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahmd.) • DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) • CIT vs. Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275 (Statute) • CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Ashwini Kumar Taneja 6 • GG Films vs. ITO 45 TTJ 644 (Cochin) and Anil Kumar Midha (HUF) vs. ITO 100 TTJ 644 (jodhpur) • Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, Biahr 103 ITR 344 (Pat) • Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati) • Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) • S. Hastimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 49 ITR 0273. Ld. DR howev…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…ion and reached a wrong conclusion that the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be d…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

M/S Ncs, Impex Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…assessee is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prompt Barter Private Limited vs ITO, Ward- 8(3), Haldia in ITA No. 806/Kol/2023 dated 11.10.2023 also the decision of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT vs Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom), Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol), ITO vs M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. All these decision are discussed as under: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (su…

Aabhushan, Dhamnod, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…e 1922 Act. However, as per settled legal position, Section 68 of the Act only gives a statutory recognition to the principle that cash credits which are not satisfactorily explained might be assessed as income. (See CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78). 13.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the assessee had furnished the details which would discharge the onus which lay on the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the partners of the assessee firm are fictitious. The Income Tax Officer has not disputed that the credits in the accou…

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 1St Floor, 134/1, M.G. Road, Vs Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. Pan: Aaccn 8291 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 19.07.2023 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. Issue Raised In Ground No. 2 To 5 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of Ao Wherein The Ao Has Made Addition Of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- On Account Of Share Capital / Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…n and reached a wrong conclusion that the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: “1. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3. Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom)” Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be…

Wellman Logistice Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

ITA 694/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6Section 68

…th in full. Ld. Counsel submitted that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the a…

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…ome and the humble appellant craves leave to submit that the learned AO has fully failed to discharge the burden of proof which squarely lay upon him. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the leading case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78.’’ 3.5 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on decisions of different judicial authorities which are mentioned as under having annexure No. 10 SATISH CHAND GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 6 to 12 and these judgements are in addition to judgements mentioned in the written submissions. May it please your honors, SOME O…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Starlight System (I) LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2167/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, C.Circle-3(4), Vs. Starlight System (I) Roomno1915,19Th Floor, Llp, 5Th Floor Sunteck Air India Bldg, Centre 37-40, Nariman Point, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400021. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Acifs0005M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dr.Kishore Dhule.CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri.Gaurav Kabra.AR

Section 68

…loan amount and accordingly not genuine in nature, The appellant also relied upon the following judicial precedents wherein it has been held no addition can be made u/s 68 if the assessee has duly discharged its onus: CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd (SC) 159 ITR 78. PCIT-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd (Del) 96 taxmann.com 403, CIT-1 Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd (Guj) 42 taxmann.com 473. 9.4 I have gone through the assessment order and also, submissions of the appellant very carefully, I find that the AO has contended that the parties did not have appropriate creditworthiness to advance the loan and ba…

Sahal Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2621/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…olding that no identity and creditworthiness of the creditors could not be proved by the assessee by ignoring all the evidences placed before him. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Ltd. ([1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC)wherein it has been held as under: “That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under Section 131 at the instan…

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1035/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Inder Paul Bansal &For Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 68

…he AO is uncalled for and wherever applicable the TDS was also deducted. The evidence being made part of the paperbook was also placed before CIT(A) and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orrisa Corporation 1986 159 ITR 78 (SC). To say and contend that in case where the assessee had given the name and address of the alleged creditors, it was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue, the revenue apart from issuing notices u/s 131 of the Act at the instance of the assessee,…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1549/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. AR & Sh. ParimalsinhFor Respondent: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…which established their creditability" There are other case laws supporting the case of the appellant as under: i) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) ii) CIT Vs. Pragati Co-op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) iii) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Sanjay K. Thakkar Tax Appeal Nos. 524 of 2004, 525 and 526 of 2004 and 579 to 583 of 2003 dated 12-9-2005 (Guj. HC) v) ITO Vs Kailpar Credit & Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.421/Ahd/2008 (ITAT. Ahd.) I am not inclined to accept the findings of the A.O. there is no inquiry report by the AO brought on record. The plethora of evidenc…

Sharda Ferro Works(P)Ltd, Howrah vs. DCIT, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…. 6.1. Ld. Counsel also submitted that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the…

ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. D B Distributors, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 808/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

…sts on the assessee. However, this is not a permanent burden, but the onus shifts on to the revenue, when the prima facie details with regard to above three aspects are shown by the assessee. In the case of Orissa Corpn P Ltd Vs CIT [1986] 25 Taxman 80F (SC), 159 ITR 78, it was held that the onus is on the Revenue to show that the creditors lacked credit worthiness when the assessee proves the identity of such creditors and provides their PAN numbers. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced hereunder. 10 ACIT v. DB Distributors "The assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged cred…

Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glint Infraporjects Private .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 2166/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg5620L Co No. 131/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No.2166/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 12-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant/ Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mirza Azhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02..2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…not brought any evidence to prove the charge of unexplained cash credit except mentioning the finding of the Investigation Wing in a routine manner. The appellant also relied upon the following judicial precedents:-  CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd (SC) 159 ITR 78.  PCIT-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd (Del) 96 taxmann.com 403.  CIT-1 Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd (Guj) 42 taxmann.com 473.  CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169.  PCIT-13 vs Veedhala Tower Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 819 of 2015) (Bom). 8.3 I have gone through the assessment order and also, submissions of the appellan…

ITO, Ward- 22(2), New Delhi vs. Saivi Finance Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 ITO, Ward-22(2) Vs. Saivi Finance Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 249, 10-B, 1st Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, DDA SFS Pocket-A, New Delhi Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, PAN AAACS1226P Delhi – 110 096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Department by : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/12/2023 Date of 26/02/2024 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order date…