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 367,154 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.

Kenhans Shares & Stock P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3940/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…thorities have only entertained presumption that they have provided accommodation entries. We have seen that the assessee has discharged the onus placed upon it and hence, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (159 ITR 78) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hospitalities (P) Ltd (supra), the assessee cannot be penalized for the failure of the AO to discharge the burden shifted upon him. Accordingly we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO…

Haren B. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3293/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3293/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Haren B. Shah Huf Income Tax Officer14(3)(1) बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Gopal Niwas, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, Vs. 133, Princess Street, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh0650K

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri A. N. Sontakke

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44A

…Officer did not consider the submission of the assessee, therefore the order of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and order is liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed upon the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 (SC). The learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. In view of the argument advanced by the parties and perusing the record it came into notice that the Assessing Officer rejected the purchases made from M/s.Krish Corporation to the tune of Rs.13,64,116/- on the statement of Shri…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah

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

…rlier decisions in Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. 5 Dy. CIT vs. Saraswati Developers CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC); and CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), held as under: ‘In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within the exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. But in v…

ITO 24(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Bhaskar Tike, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

ITA 5204/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh

Section 145Section 44A

…ird parties. The appellant also. relied on the following case laws:- 1. The CIT Vs. Laders Valves (p) Ltd. (High Court of Punjab & Har.) (285 ITR 435) 2. The CIT Vs. M' K Brothers (163 IT~ 249) (Gujarat high Court) 3. The CI.T Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC) 4. Bala]i Textile Industries (p) Ltd. Vs. I.T.O. (49 ITO 177) Bombay 5. Gujrat High Court decision 'in the case of CIT vs. Simit P .Sheth(2013) 356 ITR 451. I have considered the case' laws and appellant's request to adopt G~P. and hold that since the Assessing Officer also had accepted the sales corresponding to the bogus purchases introduc…

ITO 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Mahesh M Manani, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 389/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Shivaji B. Ghode, D.RFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 250(4)

…the ground that assessee could not produce creditors. It is not in dispute that assessee has filed confirmation from creditors along with PAN number. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [159 ITR 78 (SC)]. In view of this, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. Same needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the 4th day of August, 2016. (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 04/08/2016S.K.SINHA अ"ेिषत / Copy of Order…

M/S Cybersys Infotech Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1673/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Hri Sudhanshu Srivastava Hri Sudhanshu Srivastavahri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI BENCH ‘ ’ : NEW DELHI ’ : NEW DELHI ’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND AND AND , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA HRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA HRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-3”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 817/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2010-11 SHRI KAILASH CHANDER INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HISAR 151, PALIKA BAZAR, VS. HISAR (PAN: AAQPC3128D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, CA Department by : None Date of Hearing : 14-07-2016 Date of Order : 02-08-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 16.1.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Hisar relevant to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- “1. That the learned Commissione…

A.C.I.T Cir - 3, Asansol vs. Sri Bireswar Kar, Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

ITA 1454/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…parties and affidavit made by both of them substantiating the transactions are being submitted. (Ref. Deputy Commissioner of income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders- 256 LT.R.- 360(2003); CIT Vs. P.K Noorjahan 237 ITR 570(1999) (SC) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd 159 ITR 78, CIT Vs. Doulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 249 and recent decisions of Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ujala Dyeing and Printing Mills (P) Ltd 328 ITR 437(Guj), CIT Vs. Micro Melt (P) Ltd 327 ITR 70(Guj.) 31. The ld.CIT-A however, did not accept the plea of the assessee for following reasons:- “Before me, the appellant’s case is that the identi…

M/S. Raj Hans Towrs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5240/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., M-33, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Circle -15(1), Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacr0019H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Respondent By Sh. V.P. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2016 Order

Section 143(3)Section 68

…t CIT(A) has made reference to various case laws which have no relevance or bearing to the facts of the case under reference and on the contrary the claim of the appellant is supported from decision of Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 and various documentary evidences placed on record. vi. That the orders of the lower authorities are not justified on facts and same are bad in law. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1,23,95,190/-. The assessee company was engaged in the business of real estate durin…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Section 68

…igh Court in para 6 of the judgment referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Sophia Finance Ltd. ( 1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB) and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Private Limited (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein it is observed that the assessee had given names and address of the alleged creditors and said creditors were income tax assessees and if the assessee could not produce the parties or did not attend in response to summons issued under section 131 of the Act, in the circumstances the assessee could not do anything further and Tribunal…

Asst.C.I.T., Shimoga vs. M/S H. Omkarappa, Shimoga

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

ITA 954/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Shivamogga. … Appellant Vs. H .Omkarappa, Prop. M/S. N.R.Halagappa & Sons No.3, ’A’ Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga. … Respondent Pa No.Aabhh 1124 B

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala,JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 40

…sales and directed that only GP addition of 8% of the total turnover of Rs.2,23,40,550/- should be made following the following decision: i. CIT vs. President Industries (258 ITR 654)(Guj. ii. CIT vs. S.M.Omar (201 ITR 608) iii. Anis Ahmed & Sons vs. CIT(A) (297 ITR 441)(SC) and iv. ITO vs. Gurubachan Singh Juneja (216 ITR 99)(ITAT, Ahm.) (216 ITR 99) As regards the disallowance of commission and interest u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the additions were deleted by the CIT(A) by observing that tax deducted or remitted to the Government of India before due date for filing return of income. 5. Being aggrieved by this…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…) 49 ITR 273(Mad); Tola Ram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4 AY: 2006-07 (Cal.)]. (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.); CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); Sarogi Credit Corpn. Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat); CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd.(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) & Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). In this regard, it is important to take note of the judgment in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram (Supra) holding that the burden is on the department to show that the money be longed to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on record & the assessee could not e expected to put evidence to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Manish Agarwal, New Delhi

In the result ground NO. 7 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2963/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Manish Agarwal, Central Circle-11, Room No.364, K-2/11, Vs. E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Model Town, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaepa0068J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kr. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita B. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 153A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Manish Agarwal, Central Circle-11, Room No.364, K-2/11, Vs. E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Model Town, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAEPA0068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Vinod Kr. Bindal, CA Mrs. Sweety Kothari, CA Revenue by: Smt. Paramita B. Biswas, CIT DR Date of Hearing 02/05/2016 Date of pronouncement 24/06/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT (A)-I, New Delhi dated…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

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

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla

Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…nded before the AO in response to summons u/s.131, no addition can be made in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Orbital Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 560 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anis Ahmad & Sons, 297 ITR 441. Our attention was also invited to the details of shareholders filed before the AO like confirmation, board resolution, audited accounts, bank statements, share certificate copies. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Creative World Tel, 333 ITR 100 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ujala Dye…

ITO Ward 17 (4) vs. Vital Communication Ltd

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2448/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…o shareholders which are comprehensive enough giving PAN no. and other necessary particulars and are sufficient evidence in, so 27 far as the initial onus upon the appellant is concerned in view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78. In any case, it was seen by me that nothing thereafter was asked from the appellant by AO as is clear from Pg 6 of assessment order where in nothing has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as to whether he did at all ask about these things in the assessment order. Therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to furnish bank statement o…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…ee to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78, Bombay High Court in the case of Creative World Telefilm Ltd., 333 ITR 100, Allahabad High Court in the case of Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2014-TIOL-297- HC-ALL-IT 14. In support of the proposition that burden is on the Department to show that money received by the assessee company is money received was actually assessee's own money part…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

M/S. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1753/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…th February, 2016 of ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi. (ix) Suncity Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT & others – ITA No.14/Del/2012 and others, order dated 21st March, 2016 of ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi. (x) CIT, Orissa Vs. Orissa Corporation P.Ltd. – [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). 33. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer made the addition mainly on the basis of the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal wherein he has allegedly stated to have provided the accommodation entries to the assessee. He stated that the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal was recorded behind the back of the assessee and the assessee was never al…

M/S. Best Realtors (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1709/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2007-08