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

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsummons under section 131onus of proofsection 131(1)share application moneyshare capital and share premiumpermanent account numbersection 158bbshell companyaddition u/s 68genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sankalp Corporate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1) M/S. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 68

…referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this regard, the ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to a catena of case laws as under: Sr. No. PARTICULARS 1. CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom-HC) 2. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd ITA No. 16 of 2012 (Bom-HC) 3. ACIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITA No.5784/ Mum/ 2011 4. CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITA 1613 of 2014 (Bom-HC) 5. Green Infra Ltd vs. ITO 38 Taxmann.com 253 (Mum-ITAT) 6. CIT vs. Green Infra 3 92 ITR 7 (Bom-HC) 7. CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms L…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Citygold Education Research Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4742/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Income Tax Officer -9(2)(3) Citygold Education Room No. 601A, 6Th Floor, Research Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ackruti Trade Centre, 6Th Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Floor, Road No.7, Marol – Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aafca5195A

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: H.N Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. Further, in recent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the 9. case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom), following the case law of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd deleted the addition by observing in 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…