How many judgments cite ITO v. Diza?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Diza (255 ITR 573), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Diza come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 144, Section 147, Section 44AD, Section 69, Section 36(1)(iii).

ITO v. Diza

255 ITR 573High Court2002#2822 most cited

What is ITO v. Diza authority for?

For an addition under Section 68, the assessee must satisfactorily explain the source of depositors and their creditworthiness; mere receipt of funds via banking channels or furnishing particulars is not conclusive proof of genuineness.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Diza · Diza Holdings · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained deposits · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · burden of proof assessee · cheque payment not conclusive · banking channel transaction · deeper inquiry financial capacity

Also reported as

120 Taxmann 539

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 144 Section 147 Section 44AD Section 69 Section 36(1)(iii)Section 129 Section 131

Issues it is cited on

real income theory section 269s paper company source of source section 269ss creditworthiness of the creditor section 273b section 271d furnishing inaccurate particulars of income section 269 addition under section 68 furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing ITO v. Diza

Zachariayil Abraham Puthepurayil, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-3, Trivandrum

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

ITA 329/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None --- (Written submission)For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ssessee to rebut the same and if he fail to rebut it, it can be held against the assessee that it was a receipt of an income nature." Reliance is also placed here to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of ITO vs Diza Holdings {P} Itd {255 ITR 573} wherein it was held that the burden was on the assessee to offer a satisfactory explanation 4 Sri.Zacharia Abraham Puthenpurayil. about the nature and source and the amount found credited in the books of the assessee. Mere furnishing of particulars was not enough and the mere fact that the payment was by way of account payee cheque was also not…

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…n K. Ramasamy v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Mad), it was held that veil can be pierced in exceptional circumstances. The Income-tax authorities are entitled to look at the reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 617 (P&H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Meerut

ITA 4623/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Circle-2, Educational & Social Meerut Welfare Trust, A-217, Defence Colony, Meerut Pan: Aahts6246H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 11Section 115Section 115BSection 12Section 68

…17 DTR 249” V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VIII. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) IX. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in holding that the section 115 BBC of the I.T. Act 1961 inserted by the Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 01/04/2007 was not applicable to the case despite clear mandatory provisions contained therein to tax entire such amount under the pretext that the donation…

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

…n K. Ramasamy v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Mad), it was held that veil can be pierced in exceptional circumstances. The Income-tax authorities are entitled to look at the reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002 254 ITR 617 (P & H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 IT…

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

…n K. Ramasamy v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 358 (Mad), it was held that veil can be pierced in exceptional circumstances. The Income-tax authorities are entitled to look at the reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002 254 ITR 617 (P & H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 IT…

Smt. Parulben Rajubhai Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1308/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…source from which such third party has been able to obtain money. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Rohini Builders (supra) and also Nemi Chand Kothari (supra); ITO vs. Diza Holdings (P) Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerala) and so on. 8.4 In the backdrop of the tenets of law relevant to the present case as digested above, we take a look at the facts emerging from the record with respect to loan taken from Smt. Kirtiben R Patel filed before the AO. From the bank statement of lender placed before Revenue, it is apparent that the lender has, in turn, received…

Damodaran & Sons, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(5), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2179/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

…nfirmed the order of the Ld.AO after detailed deliberations and placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, in the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Diza Holdings reported in 255 ITR 573 and in the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case Precision Finance reported in 208 ITR 265 etc., wherein it was held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channel is of no consequence by itself. 7. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessees were not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the witness w…

Laxmi Devi Maheswari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(1), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2178/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

Vijay Kumar Maheswari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(4), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2177/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

Vinay Kumar Maheswari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(4), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2176/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

Gayathri Devi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(3), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2175/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

M/S. Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5955/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O Gh – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aatpa 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

…the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Company Ltd. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Kerala High Court Judgment in the case of ITO vs. Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 120 Taxmann 539 (Kerala), is not correct as these judgments have been delivered on entirely different facts. In the present case, it is clear from the facts that there is no allegation of any accommodation entry, nor there is any adverse statement of any entry operator about the share capital received by the assessee company from these 4 shareholders. Furthe…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…f transactions in the background of the serious admissions made by Mukesh Chokshi duly corroborated by independent enquiries made from the main brokers M/s ISE and ISS. This view is supported by decisions in cases of P Mohankala 291 ITR 278(SC), Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573(ker), Precision finance 208 ITR 265(Cal) , 187 ITR 596(Cal) etc, wherein it has been held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channels is of no consequence by itself. 4.2.4 The decision of Mukesh R Marolia 6 SOT 247(Mum) relied by Ld ARis not applicable to the appellant because in that case the primary reason to disbelieve the ap…

Smt. Shubha V. Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO - 20(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2586/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2586/Mum/2013, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. V. Justin

Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68

…ty corroborated by independent enquiries made by the Investigation Wing. In the following decisions, it has been held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channels is of no consequence by itself: - • P Mohankala 291 1TR 278(SC) • Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573(Ker) • Precision finance 208 ITR 265(Cal) 5.5 The recent decision of ITAT Mumbai in 1TA No. 7024/M/2010 dated 30.01.2013 in the case of Arvind M. Kariya, the Hon'ble Tribunal had occasion to deliberate on a similar transaction wherein accommodation entries had been obtained and the assessee had claimed LTCG on the sale proceeds received. In the s…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…na) 17 DTR 249" V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VIII. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) I.. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law in admitting the additional evidences while deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the IT. Act 1961 in violation of the principles laid down as per Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 as none of the conditions of sub claus…

Trident Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 537/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Tulsian, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ing judicial decisions and held that the addition made u/s. 68 is justified. i) CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease P Ltd. (2012) 324 ITR 169 (Delhi) ii) CIT vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corpn Ltd. (2012) 205 Taxman 16 (Delhi) iii) ITO vs. Diza Holdings P Ltd. (2002) 255 ITR 573 (Ker) iv) CIT vs. United Commercial & Indl. Co. P Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) v) CIT vs. Neelkanth Ispat Udhyog Pvt. Ltd. 2012-TIOL- 606-HC-DEL-IT vi) ITO vs. Onassis Axies Pvt. Ltd. 2012-TIOL-415-ITAT- DEL vii) Dhingra Global Credence (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 1 ITR Trib. 529 (Delhi) 7.3 We have carefully gone through the assessment order as we…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S. Jayanti Prasad Jeevan Lal Jain, Meerut

In the result we confirm the finding of the ld

ITA 227/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Jayanti Prasad Jeevan Lal Jain, Ward-1(3), Sarraf Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Meerut Navjeevan, New Prem Puri, Railways Road, Meerut Pan: Aabcj6694D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR

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

…7 DTR 249 (vii) M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. (viii) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) (x) CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) (xi) ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) (xii) CIT Vs Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 18 Taxmann 217. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,31,314/- being Page 2 of 9 bogus purchases ignoring the fact that since the letters of enquiry u/s 133(6) of the IT Act, 19…

Raj Rishi Sharma, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1217/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1217/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Raj Rishi Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1011, Sector-3, Ward-1, Rohtak (Haryana) Rohtak (Haryana) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acops1474Q Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2016 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 1217/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Raj Rishi Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1011, Sector-3, Ward-1, Rohtak (Haryana) Rohtak (Haryana) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACOPS1474Q Assessee by : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 29.06.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 12.11.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates t…

Sun Star Gems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3074/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3074/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Sun Star Gems Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(4), बनाम/ Ltd.,342, Panchratna, Mumbai. V. Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcs9525L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra(D.R.)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…he onus shifts to the Revenue. The AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bhola Shankar Cold Storage Private Limited v. CIT in 270 ITR 487 and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raunaq Ram Nandlal v. CIT 254 ITR 617 . Further it was observed by the AO that the assessee company has received unsecured loan of Rs. 7,17,500/- from Shri Navnit A Parikh, Director of the company. The assessee company was asked to file the loan confirmations along with the copy of bank statement but the lender has produced only loan confirmations, but his bank statement evidencing t…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Vats Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

ITA 2776/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Soanbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Garg, Adv

…17 DTR 249" III. Mis Sejai International Ltd vis CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. IV. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) V. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VI. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) VII. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) VIII. VIII. CIT vis Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. (2) That the appellant craves leave to add, modify andlor delete any ground(s) of appeal. (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the A.O. restored.” 2. We find that Revenue in the G…