49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT

252 ITR 344High Court2001#15512 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 263 Section 68

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 68 previous year person section 143(3)business document interest

Judgments citing 49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT

JAI GOPAL GOYAL,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1123/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1123/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jai Gopal Goyal, The Ito, बनाम C-146, Industrial Area, Ward 6(1), Phase Vii, Chandigarh Vs. Mohali, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdpg0160G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.10.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nsel of the Assessee has also filed confirmation and other related documents from both these persons. In his support, the Ld. Counsel has brought it on record different case laws on this issue which are as under: -  CIT vs Burma Electro Corporation [P&H JC] 252 ITR 344 dt. 9.8.2000  Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO (Raj HC) 8 DTR 199 dt. 25.1.2007]  PCIT vs Neotech Education foundation (2023) 458 ITR 0150 (Guj.)  CIT vs Jawaharlal Oswal (382 ITR 453) (P&H HC)  DCIT vs Smt.Veena Awasthi (ITA 215/LKW/2016) [Luck. ITAT] dated 30.11.2018  M/s Choice Buildestate Pvt. Ltd vs ITO, Jaipur (ITA No. 431 & 432/JP/2016) dat…

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…CIT Vs K.S.M Guruswary Nadar & Sons (1984) 149 ITR 127 it was held that two additions, one towards suppressed books profit and other toward bogus cash credit, should be telescoped and covered into one addition. 3.4 In CIT Vs Burma Electro Corporation (2001) 252 ITR 344 held that, "The assessee was a firm comprising 12 partners. The cash credit to the extent of Rs. 10,000.00 of Shri Had Singh, Rs.5,000.00 of Shri Gurdev Singh and Rs.50,00 of Smt. Dhan Raj have not been properly explained by the assessee as sufficiency of funds at the time of assessment in their case to the extent have not been explained. In thes…

V.L JEWELLERS,DELHI vs. CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(SC) Pr. Cit v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Soivex affirmed the judgment in the case of Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Soivex reported in 253 Taxman 135 (Guj) ii) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT iii) 245 ITR 160 (MP) CiT v. Metachem Industries iv) 252 ITR 344 (P&H) CIT v. Barna Electro Corporation v) 11 TMI 630 (P&H) CIT v. Metal & Metals of India vi) 208 CTR 459 (P&H) C1T v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 UR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 221 ITR 239 (All) Surendra M…

CHAMP INFO SOFTWARE,NOIDA vs. PRCIT, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Champ Info Software, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, E-24, Sector-55, A2, D Block, Sector 24, Noida. Noida (U.P.)-201301 Vs

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…(SC) Pr. Cit v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex affirmed the judgment in the case of Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex reported in 253 Taxman 135 (Guj) ii) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT iii) 245 ITR 160 (MP) CIT v. Metachem Industries iv) 252 ITR 344 (P&H) CIT v. Barna Electro Corporation v) 11 TMI 630 (P&H) CIT v. Metal & Metals of India 5 Assessment year 2013-14 vi) 208 CTR 459 (P&H) CIT v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 ITR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 2…

M/S HEM RAJ HARPREET SINGH & CO.,TAPA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 817/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarhem Raj Harpreet Singh &Co. Vs. Pr. Cit Wine Contractor Patiala Barnala Bathinda Road Tapa

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…rt in the following cases wherein it has been held that if the partners are not able to justify the sources of the capital contribution then, the same cannot be treated as income in the hands of the firm itself:- (i) CIT vs Burma Electro Corporation, P&H HC, 252 ITR 344 (ii) CIT vs Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka, P&H HC 208 ITR 459 (iii) CIT vs Metals and Metals of India P&H HC, 208 ITR 457. 8. We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. CIT have been duly examined by the Assessing Officer. The payment in cash am…

M/S. SHRI GEMS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2912/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shri Gems, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/2441, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Ward-33(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcfs2245L Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-28, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 234BSection 69C

…n and produces the person who has deposited the amount, then the burden of the treated to be the income of the firm for the purposes of income-tax." 24. Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Barna Electro Corporation [2001] 252 ITR 344 affirmed the view of the Tribunal by holding that: “The Tribunal deleted the addition n the ground that thought there was no evidence to show that on the date of investment, the partners had sufficient funds in their possession to prove that the investments were made from that amount in the capital account, since these partners admitted to have m…