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.

Lakshya Educational Trust, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4128/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

…t be said that it has not carried out any activities. Further arguments of the assessee that activities of the trust having not started and therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee has been negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1986) 159 ITR 78 CIT VS. ORRISA CORPORATION P LTD, wherein, noting the new section 68 of the 1961, it was held that :- “It was argued that in view of the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the onus in these types of cases was on the assessee and, in this case, the assessee had not discharged that onus and in the premises, questions of law as indicated above aros…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…t appeal is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.” [Emphasis Supplied] 34. Also Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 has held that, burden u/s 68 stands discharged by proving the identity of the creditors by giving the complete address and, permanent account numbers, which has been duly complied by the assessee. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment as under: “Thus it is clear that the assessee had discharged the initial onus which lays on it terms of sect…

Mesers Fashion House, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(3), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fashion House, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492 001 Pan : Aacff3323M .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi Revenue By : Smt. Anubhaa T. Goel

For Appellant: Shri R.B. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa T. Goel

Section 133(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण न्यायपीठ रायपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 217/RPR/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Fashion House, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492 001 PAN : AACFF3323M .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-4(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B. Doshi Revenue by : Smt. Anubhaa T. Goel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.20…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…and other judgements over such issues, mentioned earlier, the additions made of Rs. 3,44,45,000/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961, is deleted.” 15 M/s. Re n Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 has 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 assessee's. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notice under section 131 at the instance of the responden…

Kanchan Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Jalpaiguri

ITA 2411/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini Am]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…t those companies and have made the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of assessee which according to the learned AR is illegal & not sanctioned by law and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITO vs BSNI Commercial Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 686/Kol/2017 order dated 22.11.2018 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in ITO vs M/s. Trend Infra Developer Pvt. Ltd. order dated 26.10.2018. 7. The Learned AR also pointed out that another fact which the authorit…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Gateway Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…1 M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 2269/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Wd-10(4), Vs. M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata. (PAN: AAECG 0052 F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 12.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 01.05.2019 For the Appellant Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Savitri Share and Securities Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1703/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…o been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 , has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessi…

Smt. Shital R. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3136/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt. Shital R Shah Ito बनाम/ B/508, Krishna Tower, Ward- 7(2)(5), Vs. Opp. Priya Cinema, Nature View Building, Saijpur Bogha, Ahmedabad Krishnangar, Ahmedabad- 382345 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bek Ps2 377 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234CSection 68

…sits. Hence, no addition is called for u/s. 68. Reliance is placed on: " DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) " Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Pragati Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • Having furnished the aforesaid details, the concerned credits, by no stretch of imagination, remain unexplained any further in the assessee’s hands. • AO and CIT(A) have, rather than commenting on the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee, commented on peripheral issues such as such person were not produced before AO, assessee cou…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…there is no reason to disbelieve the transaction. It has been held by various Courts that where lender is assessed to tax and loan confirmation with particulars of PAN are filed no addition 'could be made u/s 68 as held in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78)(SC). The IT Department has accepted the returns of the loan creditors it should go to mean that the' amounts given by these Loan Creditors were also genuine as the concerned Assessing Officer accepted all the loan creditor's of income and their corresponding sources of funds and investments. As far as credit-worthiness or sources of the creditor/…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

M/S Bihari Lal Malpani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…bility. This proposition is supported by the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Additional CIT v. Bahri Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 244 and the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). Thus the appellant having discharged the burden, it is the Revenue which had to verify the genuineness of the transaction and the primarily in case AO did not discharge the burden which had shifted on him and had just mechanically adhered to disallow the loss .aimed by the appellant without rebutting any of the submissions of the appellant.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Joitkumar B. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5638/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri V.C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ences and proofs furnished by the assessee and no further enquiries have been made to disprove the evidences furnished by assessee. 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., (159 ITR 78) held that the assessee is required to prove (i) identity of the lender/party, (ii) the genuineness of the transactions and (iii) the credit worthiness of the lender/party. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is the case of the assessee that where the identity of the parties and their capacity is 10 Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain established,…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 133(6)Section 68

…Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank reholders. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. (iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) has 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 assessee's. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notice under section 131 at the instance of the respond…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…5 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR -II V. MORANI ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 44 M/s Agrasen Agro Industries P Ltd. Vs DCIT AUTOMOTIVES (P.) LTD. [2014] 264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN- HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v/s Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(MAG.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan), CIT v/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(M…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

Shri Jaipal Singh Mahalawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 365/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Transaction

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain (Adv) &For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 365/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 cuke Jaipal Singh Mahalawat, I.T.O., Vs. Q-72, Raj Aangan, NRI Colony, Ward 7(2), Pratap nagar, jaipur-302033. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACLPM 2560 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Smt. Rano Jain (Adv) & Shri Himanshu Goyal (CA) jktLo d…

Bidit Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata

ITA 579/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Mukherjee, Addl. CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 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 Bidit Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 e…

Ajay Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3555/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT-D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.3555/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Shri Ajay Sharma, Ghaziabad. The DCIT (Central Circle), PAN CDSPS1356L Income Tax Office, 3rd vs. C/o. M/s. O.P. Sapra & Floor, CGO Complex-1, Associates, C-763, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad. New Friends Colony, Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi - 110 025. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate. For Revenue : Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2019 ORDER PER…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Topaz Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2271/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata.................................………....………………...…………………….….Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies. In our considered opinion, for this reason alone, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC). We find that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Novo Promoters and Finelease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 (Del) vehemently relied upon by the ld. DR before us, is not applicable in the instant case, as in the facts before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the notices u/s 133(6) have not been duly complied with. Hence th…