CIT v. Orissa Corporation 1986 ITR 1849

256 ITR 306High Court#13914 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(i)(va)

Issues it is cited on

section 268section 147(a)true and full disclosurescheme of arrangementbogus share capitalwithin four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 148 noticeshell companyfirst proviso to section 147beyond four yearsmaterial facts necessary for assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation 1986 ITR 1849

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

…The money so received as is evident that was repaid also. All\nthese records so placed on record were not controverted which proves the identity,\ngenuineness and capacity. On the similar set of fact Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in\nthe case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 306 held that \"The genuineness of the\ntransaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as\nrepayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee\ncheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account\npayee cheques.\"\nMoreover, our Jurisdictional High Court in the cas…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ss. The money so received as is evident that was repaid also. All these records so placed on record were not controverted which proves the identity, genuineness and capacity. On the similar set of fact Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 306 held that "The Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques." Moreover…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…The money so\nreceived as is evident that was repaid also. All these records so placed on record were not\ncontroverted which proves the identity, genuineness and capacity. On the similar set of\nfact Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 306 held that \"The\n\n65\nITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024\nKedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur\ngenuniness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as\nwell as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account\npayee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the credit…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…The money so\nreceived as is evident that was repaid also. All these records so placed on record were not\ncontroverted which proves the identity, genuineness and capacity. On the similar set of\nfact Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 306 held that \"The\n66\nITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024\nKedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur\ngenuniness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as\nwell as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account\npayee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditor…

AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

…The money so received as is evident that was repaid also. All these records so placed on record were not controverted which proves the identity, genuineness and capacity. On the similar set of fact Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 306 held that "The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques." Moreover, our Jurisdictional High Court in the case of…

JOTHIRLING JEWELLERS,COIMBATORE vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 1 [4] , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 534/Chny/2022 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jothirling Jewellers, The Income Tax Officer, 270-B, S T R Building, V. Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Raja Street, Race Course, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aajfj-7992-D] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate For अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2023 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023

Section 68

…of sales made by the appellant. 5. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have considered various case laws including that of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation 1986 ITR 1849 and in the case of DCIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 306 Guj directing the assessing officer to verify if required from their end when the names and addresses are provided by the appellant in the case of cash credits. It is the claim of the appellant is that they have received cash in reciprocal to sale of jewellary for which names addresses and the sales tax returns have been filed along with the book…

M/S KAMAL RAYON PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…action has been proved by various documents and by appearing before the A.O. in person. Therefore, the A.O. was not justified in making the addition u/s.68 of the Act. The learned A.R. further placed reliance in the case of DCIT Vs Rohini Builders, [2002] -256 ITR 306 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that the Tribunal deleted the addition u/s. 68 accepting the genuineness of loan which were received and repaid by the assessee by account payee cheques establish the creditworthiness by giving their complete address, GIR No, PAN along with copies of assessment order where appeal u/s. 250A was dismissed. The SLP…

CIT v. Orissa Corporation 1986 ITR 1849 (256 ITR 306) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax