(i) CIT v. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd.

334 ITR 370Reported decision#17685 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 43AASection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 256speculation losssection 43(5)section 43asummons under section 131section 35(2ab)mercantile system of accountingaddition u/s 68service of noticesection 115jbsection 43section 37(1)

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd.

Sh. Devendra Dutt Pant, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Uttarkahand

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

…sell the agricultural produce, handing over l/3rd of produce to the owners of the land (kindly see pages 235 to 237 of PB). Reliance is placed on judgment of 4 Devendra Dutt Pant Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Faiz Zurtaza Ali vs CIT reported in 334 ITR 370 and CIT vs Genesis Commet Pvt. Ltd. reported in 163 Taxman 482 on the proposition that “if Assessing Officer was not inclined to believe material produced by assessee that it could possibly produce, he could have used coercive powers available to him, i.e., to summon and cross-examine parties or to make independent enquiries to discard the eviden…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3579/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…bmitted the details of parties and the confirmations from them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 24(2) New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3578/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…bmitted the details of parties and the confirmations from them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT Range 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…bmitted the details of parties and the confirmations from them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. Addl CIT Rang 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3576/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…bmitted the details of parties and the confirmations from them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted…