How many judgments cite CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.?

222 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 136), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 131, Section 148.

CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

397 ITR 136High Court2017#402 most cited

What is CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Mere non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 does not automatically disprove a transaction, and the Assessing Officer cannot disregard other documentary evidence furnished by the assessee when making additions under Section 68.

222

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. · Orchid Industries · Section 68 · Section 131 · share application money · cash credit · onus of proof · burden of proof · summon non-compliance · documentary evidence · genuineness of transaction · existence of creditor

Also reported as

88 Taxmann.com 502

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 69C Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor summons under section 131 onus of proof section 131(1)share application money share capital and share premium permanent account number section 158bb shell company addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Manoj Kasliwal, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central (1), Indore

ITA 466/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…Sumati Kumar Kasliwal & others ITANo.181,472/Ind/2017,ITA(SS)No.178,ITANo.468/Ind/2017&C.O.No.31/Ind/2018 and others आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA(SS) No.181, ITA 472/Ind/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Sumati Kumar Kasliwal, ACIT (Central)-1, 17, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AABPK9520G ITA(SS) No.179/Ind/2017 & ITANo.465/Ind/2017 Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Shri Parth Kasliwal, ACIT (Centra…

Parth Kasliwal, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central (I), Indore

ITA 465/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Dyputi Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 452/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Bidit Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata

ITA 579/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Mukherjee, Addl. CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68

…as applied as share holder. The view of taken by the Tribunal is just and proper, therefore, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 17. Further, in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 502/397 ITR 136, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the issue of non-appearance of share applicants had held as under: "[5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Blisswood Green Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5120/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, vs. Blisswood Green Infrastructure Ward 5(1), New Delhi. and Developers Pvt. Ltd., 289-Chhatarpur Pahari Road, New Delhi. PAN – AADCB 2384A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Respondent by S/Sh. D.C. Agarwal, R.N. Poonia, AR Sh. Sudesh Garg, Advocate Date of Hearing 04.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order…

ITO, WD-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodluck Merchants P Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Goodluck Merchants P. Ltd..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 10/4B, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcb 2011 L]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/s. Goodluck Merchants P. Ltd..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 10/4B, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [PAN : AABCB 2011 L] Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT Sr. D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the h…

ITO, WD-9(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…ed that no addition can be made merely because the directors did not appear before the ld. Assessing Officer in response to summons issued to them. He relied on the following case-law:- a) Orrissa Corporation Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) b) Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Mumbai HC) c) Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. 394 ITR 680 (Mumbai HC) 4.1.1. He specifically pointed out to the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A), at page 32 & 33 of his order, wherein the factual errors committed by the Assessing Officer have been highlighted and submitted that he ld. D/R could not controvert these findings and argued that th…

DCIT, Cir.-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1762/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…as applied as share holder. The view of taken by the Tribunal is just and proper, therefore, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 14. Further, in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 502/397 ITR 136, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the issue of non-appearance of share applicants had held as under: 9 I.T.A No 1762/Kol/2016 M/s. Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt.Ltd. "[5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and…

M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 573/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…Tirupati Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2(1) (4) Surat/I.T.A. No.573/Ahd/2017/A.Y.:12-13 Page 1 of 31 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/s. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat PAN: AACCT 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee…

Shree Giriraj Ferromet P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3697/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri P Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e parties as the ledger account or extracts were filed before the Assessing Officer. In view of these arguments, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom.) wherein honorable High court has considered the decision of division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom). 9. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). He argued that once the parties have…

Karsandas Lalkhman Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 342/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. Karsandas Lakhman Acit, Circle 18(2) Jhaveri Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor 219, Shaikh Memon Street Vs. Earnest House, Zaveri Bazar Narimanpoint Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaafk3837B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi & Shri Khatiwala Respondent By: Shri Sachchidanand Dube Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-29, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2016 & It Relates To A.Y. 2012-13. 1. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Carrying On The Business Of Dealers & Exporters In Precious Metals, Diamonds, Stones, Gold & Silver Jewellery. Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed On 27.09.2012 Declaring Total Income At `1,48,23,960/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Found That Advances Received From One Shri Quasim Mohd Yousuf A Bastak & Smt. Samira Abbas Was Shown In The Books. Assessee Had Shown An Advance Of `1.50 Crores From Shri Quasim Mohd Yousuf A Bastak & `75 Lakhs From Smt. Samira Abbas. It Was Explained

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" Bench, Mumbai Before Hon’ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Hon’ble Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member M/s. Karsandas Lakhman ACIT, Circle 18(2) Jhaveri Room No. 302, 3rd Floor 219, Shaikh Memon Street Vs. Earnest House, Zaveri Bazar Narimanpoint Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 PAN – AAAFK3837B Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi & Shri Khatiwala Respondent by: Shri Sachchidanand Dube Date of Hearing: 12.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, JM This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order of the…

Sunshine Metals & Alloys Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3212/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 68

…as share application and premium. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that in the given facts of the present case the issue is considered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom.) wherein honorable High court has considered the decision of division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom) & Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR (SC) and held as under: - “5. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 95 lakhs as incom…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Advent Stock Management Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1647/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 SC and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136, have held that an addition cannot be made simply because a person has not appeared in compliance to notice u/s 131of the Act, when all the other requirements of the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, has been complied with. Similar are the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Advent Stock Management Ltd the case…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…80 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd. [2017] 400 ITR 439 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Apeak Info Tech Nagpur & Ors [2017] 397 148 (Bom- HC), CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta [2017] 251 Taxman 346 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom-HC). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that as the assessee failed to produce the parties for examination before the AO and further failed to given the latest known address at which the department could issue summons u/…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indo Energy International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 523/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [40 CCH 128](Mumbai) 2 CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 680](Bombay) 3 Green Infra Ltd Vs. ITO [145 ITD 240](Mumbai) 4 CIT Vs. Green Infra Ltd [392 ITR 7](Bombay) 5 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [397 ITR 136](Bombay) 6 ITO Vs. M/s Sringeri Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.3924/Mum/2014] (ITAT Mumbai) 7 DCIT Vs. M/s Alcon Biosciences P Ltd [ITA No.l946/M/2016](ITAT Mumbai) 8 Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [384 ITR 322](Bombay) 8 M/s. Indo Energy International Ltd. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We…

M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1I, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 975/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…pinion that the ld. CIT has not stated anything against the propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra) and the judgment in the case of CIT v. M/s. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 and the judgment in the case of Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd., judgment dt. April 17th, 2018, where in it is held that the amendment to the proviso to Section 68 of the Act, is not retrospective and thus cannot be applied for the assessment years prior to the 6 I.T.A. No. 975/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ms/. Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd as…

Grover Vineyards Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3509/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Ward M/S Grover Vineyards 1(1)(4),531 A/579 Pvt. Ltd., 107/8, 1St Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Arcadia, N.C.P.A. M.K.Road Lane, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Grover Vineyards Income Tax Officer Ltd. Anand Bhavan, 348, Ward 1(1)(4) Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacg3592Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. L. Raghavendra Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Ward M/s Grover Vineyards 1(1)(4),531 A/579 Pvt. Ltd., 107/8, 1st Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Arcadia, N.C.P.A. M.K.Road Lane, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAACG3592Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Grover Vineyards Income Tax Officer Ltd. Anand Bhavan, 348, Ward 1(1)(4) Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. AAACG3592Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…troverted specifically, cannot justify adverse inference u/s 68 of the Act which is unlawful according to Ld AR. He also filed a separate compilation for the following cases laws to support this proposition : i) Hon’ble Bombay high court in Orchid Industries (397 ITR 136); ii) Hon’ble Delhi high court in Softline Creation Pvt Ltd (387 ITR 636); iii) Hon’ble Delhi high court in Rakam Money Matters Pvt Ltd (order dated 13/10/2015); iv) Hon’ble Delhi high court in Goodview Industries order dated 21//11/2016; v) Delhi ITAT decision (on same facts) in case of Aksar wire Products Pvt Ltd (order dated 11/12/2015); vi) D…

Pratik Syntex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6690/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Pratik Syntex Private Ito 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar V. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaecp3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/s. Pratik Syntex Private ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar v. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAECP3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Haresh P. Shah Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 01.05.2018…

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)

…vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 106  CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 778 of 2015  CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. General Exports and Credits Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268  CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order passed by the authorities below. It was submitted that AO was justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee. Further, the CIT(A) has examined the issue and rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the following judgments in support of its con…