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.

Anirudh Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(7), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…assessee has filed all the evidences qua the loan creditors before the authorities below. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 2. 6. In the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "That in this case the respondent had given…

Adhira Vinicom Private Limited, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (10)1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Adhira Vincom Private Limited Ito, Ward (10)1, Kolkata 52/1, 2Nd Floor, Santan Mistry Chowringhee Square, Lane, Near Oriya Para Mandir, Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Howrah-711011, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca4935E Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…he AO in the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act were duly complied. In defense of his argument he relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); Assessment Year; 2012-13 (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 07. The Ld. D.R strongly controverted and opposed the arguments as put forth by the Ld. A.R by submitting that the share application money w…

Caravan Corporate Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Caravan Corporate Management Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(1), C/O Subash Agarwal & Kolkata Associates, Advocates Sidha Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc2572L Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…the Act were duly complied in two cases. In defense of his argument he relied on the following decisions: Caravan Corporate Management Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 06. The Ld. D.R strongly controverted and opposed the arguments as put forth by the Ld. A.R by submitting that the share application money wa…

Kemox Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 221/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 142Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.221, 226 & 227/M/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2019-20 & 2020-21 M/s. Kemox Corporation, House No.69/100, New Mavji Compound, Narpoli, Maharashtra – 421 302 PAN: AAFFK4685A (Appellant) DCIT-CC-3, Room No.12, A Wing, Vs.16th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Thane West, Maharashtra - 400604 (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.R. a/w Shri Ravi Gantra, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Prono…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…(6) of the Act/ 131 of the Act, which is not the case before the Tribunal no adverse inference can be drawn. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - “(i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020.” 010. The ld. AR also referred to the chart showing the full details as to investor demonstrating the amounts invested by them, statement rec…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…(6) of the Act/ 131 of the Act, which is not the case before the Tribunal no adverse inference can be drawn. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - “(i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020.” 010. The ld. AR also referred to the chart showing the full details as to investor demonstrating the amounts invested by them, statement rec…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…(6) of the Act/ 131 of the Act, which is not the case before the Tribunal no adverse inference can be drawn. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - “(i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020.” 010. The ld. AR also referred to the chart showing the full details as to investor demonstrating the amounts invested by them, statement rec…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…(6) of the Act/ 131 of the Act, which is not the case before the Tribunal no adverse inference can be drawn. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - “(i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020.” 010. The ld. AR also referred to the chart showing the full details as to investor demonstrating the amounts invested by them, statement rec…

DCIT- 27(2), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Nayan Builders, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in above

ITA 4039/MUM/2023[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4039/MUM/2023 (AY:2018-19) DCIT-27(2), Nayan Builders Room No. 419, 4th floor, Tower No. Meghdoot, Vallabh Lane, 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vs. Ghatkopar East, Vashi, Maharashtra-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 PAN: AAPCM1543G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department Represented by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. DR Assessee Represented by : Shri Paras Savla, Ld. AR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHA…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, CC-2 v. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar v. DCIT, Central Circle-II Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appel…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, CC-2 v. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar v. DCIT, Central Circle-II Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appel…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Bharatiya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3850/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ntary evidence to establish the existence of the lenders, the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The relevant extract from the said decision is reproduced as under: "The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the I…

Mohit Bharatiya, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2213/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ntary evidence to establish the existence of the lenders, the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The relevant extract from the said decision is reproduced as under: "The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the I…

M/S. Hhp Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Hhp Hospital Private Ltd, Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 2406, Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084 Pan No. Aabch 2642 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 04.01.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 313 Days, For Which Condonation Petition Is Filed. At The Time Of Hearing The Counsel Of The Assessee Explained The Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Ld. A.R Did Not Raise Any Objection In Condoning The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…urt has very clearly held that it cannot be held that the transaction between the assessee company and the shareholder company not genuine. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries, reported in 397 ITR 136. The ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s Aastha Vincom Pvt. Ltd. passed in ITA No.2269/Kol/2019, order dated 26.08.2022 has also taken the similar view and held that mere non-appearance of the directors is not a ground for disbelieving the transaction between the assessee company and the shareholders company when other evidence comes to prove t…

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA (SS) NO. AY Assessee / Assessee Respondent 795/Mum/2025 2013-14 Dodhia Filaments Pvt Ltd. DCIT, CC -3 Room No. 12, A wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Thane (W) 796/Mum/2025 2014-15 797/Mum/2025 2015-16 69/100, New Mavji compound, Narpoli 798/Mum/2025 2016-17 799/Mum/2025 2017-18 Behind Ratan Talkies Bhiwandi 2189/Mum/2025 2013-14 Dodhia Synthetics Ltd., DCIT, CC -3 2190/Mum/2025 2013-14 House No. 98/2, Room No. 12, A wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Thane (W) 2200/Mum/202…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 602/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/s. Rudra Buildwell Homes DCIT, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi PAN: AAFCR6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising out of ITA No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Rudra Buildwell Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida PAN: AAFCR6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, ITP Department by Sh.…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…scriber companies (lender companies in the present case), the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Calculus Properties Pvt Ltd., AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 14.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Co…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 613/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…scriber companies (lender companies in the present case), the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Calculus Properties Pvt Ltd., AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 14.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Co…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 612/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…scriber companies (lender companies in the present case), the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Calculus Properties Pvt Ltd., AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 14.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Co…

Nalin Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1235/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…scriber companies (lender companies in the present case), the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 7.3. Also, it is relevant to quote the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms P…