This results in a Delhi High Court ITA regarding an appeal by the Revenue against ITAT findings on Section 68 additions based on a retracted statement without corroboration found no substantial question of law arising.
Appeal dismissed. CM applications for condonation of delay allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~27
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-DELHI-XXI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel.
versus
SUBHASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R % 03.08.2016
CM No. 27709/2016 (Exemption)
CM No. 27711/2016 (condonation of delay in re-filing) & 27710/2016 (condonation of delay in filing)
ITA No. 519/2016
S.MURALIDHAR, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J AUGUST 03, 2016 /kk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that no addition could be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of a retracted statement without corroborative evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-Delhi-XXI
Subhash Sharma
S. Muralidhar
Najmi Waziri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
