How many judgments cite CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd.?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd. (327 ITR 560), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 801A.

CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd.

327 ITR 560High Court2010#9686 most cited

What is CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd. authority for?

Addition for share application money cannot be made under section 68 if the assessee provides substantial evidence proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, even if the creditor is not produced.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd. · section 68 · share application money · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness · unexplained cash credit · addition under section 68 · evidence of share applicant

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 801A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

closely held company addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction section 133(6)unexplained cash credit section 10 section 131 undisclosed income notice under section 148 section 68 assistant commissioner

Judgments citing CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd.

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.252/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikash Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated 01/…

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.247/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikas Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faizabad vs. M/S Jeewani Fuels Pvt. Ltd, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed as discussed

ITA 303/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaasstt Commissioner Of M/S. Jeewani Fuels Pvt. V. Income Tax, Circle Ltd Dcit, Circle, Faizabad, Annexe 105, Mughalpura, Hotel Krishna Palace, Civil Faizabad-224001. Lines, Faizabad-224001. Pan:Aabcj2557K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…assessee to further prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer did not follow the principle laid down under Section 68 of the Act. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 560 (Delhi) held that where substantial evidence was produced by the company to prove credit worthiness of creditor and genuineness of share application, failure to produce creditor is not material. Addition of share application money was deleted. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jaya Securities Ltd. vs. CIT [2008] 166 Taxman 7 (All) has a…

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 322/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 cuke Venkateswara Wires Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of Vs. E-55, Road No. 5, VKI Area, Income Tax, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCV 5085 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh vksj…

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2009-10 M/s. Davalagiri Property Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Developers Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Prerana Chambers, Circle 2[1][2], No.26, 2nd Floor, Bangalore. Nehru Nagar Main Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 048. PAN: AACCD 3575A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2022 O R D E R Per…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xo Infotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Appeal of the Department is

ITA 3342/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L.P.Sahu[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Xo Infotech Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Now Known As M/S. Saral Mining Ltd.), 304, Saffron Vs. Ward-7(3), Room No.306, Building, Panchvati To Ambawadi Road, Ambawadi C.R.Building, New Delhi. Ellisbeidge,Ahmedabad- 380006.Pan-Aaaxx0059K (Appellant) (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri Vijay Varma, Cit-D.R. By Assessee : Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…that the directors or representatives of the applicant companies were not produced.” ITA No.3342/Del/2013 XO Infotech Ltd., Ahmedabad. 9.4. Judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd., (2010) 327 ITR 560 in which it was held as under : “In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting addition made on account of share application money when substantial evidence was produced by the assessee to establish…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Fern Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3390/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

Section 131(1)Section 133Section 68

…ition under section 68 can be made on account of unexplained cash credit: i. ACIT v. Kisco Casting (P.) Ltd (2013) 34 taxmann.com 37 ii. CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 15 taxmann.com 183 (Bom)(HC) iii. CIT v. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd (2010) 327 ITR 560 (Delhi) iv. CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat) v. CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 25 TAXMAN 80F (SC) vi. CIT v. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd (2014) 42 taxmann.com 473 (Guj) M/s. Fern Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vii. CIT vs. MoraniAutomotives (P.) Ltd (2014) 45 taxmann.com 473 (Rajasthan) viii. CIT v. Nipuan…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Haresh R. Majethia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3045/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit Cen. Cir 1(3) Haresh R Majethia, Mumbai 7, Pathai Niwas, N S Road, Vs. Mulund (W) Mumbai 400 080 Pan Aeqpm5542P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita RanjanFor Respondent: Ms. Ritika Agarwal

Section 131Section 153ASection 68

…ed on the following decisions of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the following cases: (a) CIT vs. Dwarka Dhish Investments Pvt.Ltd. (194 Taxman 43(Del.) (b) CIT vs. Sameer Bio Tech (2009) 26(1} TTCL 55 (Del.) (c) CIT v. Orbital Communication P. Limited [2010] 327 ITR 560 (Del.) Regarding the unsecured loans, in the names of 1) BIPIN J.THAKKAR Rs. 3,00,000/- 2) HARESHK.MARU Rs. 5,75,000/- 3) MAHENDRA FREIGHT CARRIER Rs.12,00,000/- 4) VARSHABEN V.UTHEKAR Rs. 5,00,000/- 5) GALA CORPORATION Rs. 5,55,000/- 6) ALPAJADHAVJIDEDHIA Rs. 2,00,000/- 7) DEEPAK LEELADHAR SAVLA Rs. 2,75,000/- The AR has submitted that volumi…

Blue Diamond Infrastructure & Realty P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6176/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…ACIT Vs. ETC Industries I.td. (2012) 52 SOT 159 (Indore Trib.) Proposition 2: Non production of parties cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act: 1. CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 (Del HC) 2. CIT Vs. Orbital Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 560 (Del.HC) Blue Diamond 9 3. CIT Vs. Som Tobacco India Ltd (2014) 222 Taxman 58 (All. HC)(Mag) 4. ITO Vs. Elcon Alloys Ltd. (ITA No. 4657/DeI/2009) 5.5. In rejoinder, Ld. DR drew our attention on the replies filed by the assessee before the AO. It was shown that the assessee had filed reply dated 22nd December, 2010 wherein assessee has filed som…

Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Blue Diamond Infrastructure & Reality P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6119/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

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)

…Stock Exchange. As per ld. AR merely because shareholders were not produced or attended 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…