CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd.

76 TTJ 521Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#8002 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 143(l)(a)section 39section 145(2)paper companyprincipal officersection 131(1a)live linksection 35commercial expediencyentry operatorreasoned orderaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd.

CHAMPION BUILDER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), GURGAON

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

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…ti 107 ITR 38 (SC). o The loans were interest bearing and interest debited in books on which tax was deducted at source and deposited. Even though disallowance has been made for loan received there is no disallowance of interest paid. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd) wherein it was observed that it was unusual that the interest on the loans were not disallowed whereas the loan per se was disallowed. It was also noted that the TDS on the interest has been deducted in respect of the interest payment on such loan and therefore the Income Tax Department was not justified on making addition on such loans. The…

ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…xplore for which reliance was placed on judgment: • Tolaram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 59 ITR 632 (Assam) • CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.) • Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) • Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahmd.) • DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) • CIT vs. Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275 (Statute) • CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Ashwini Kumar Taneja 6 • GG Films vs. ITO 45 TTJ 644 (Cochin) and Anil Kumar Midha (HUF) vs. ITO 100 TTJ 644 (jodhpur) • Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, Biahr 103 ITR 344 (Pat) • Jalan…

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…anchod Jivabhainakhava (ITA 50 Page 45 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore of 2011 (Guj.), judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ORRISSA CORPORATION LTD. reported in 159 ITR 78 and of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the Case of ROHINI BUILDERS reported in 76 TTJ 521. 5.26 He also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble' High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v/s. Staler Investment Ltd 192 ITR 287 wherein held as under: "...if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine even then under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the…

JAYANTILAL VALLABHBHAI RAMOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Income Tax Officer, Ramoliya, 33-134, Miranagar Ward-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Society, Varachha Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Abipr 3365 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 68

…equired details in support of his submission, the assessee relied upon certain case law including in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd) confirmed in 256 ITR 360 (Guj). 8. On the disallowance of expenses, the assessee stated that assessee furnished the evidence of expense but Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenses instead of making a reasonable disallowance of 10 to 20%. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the addition of advance re…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 48/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153CSection 158BSection 254(1)

…ya & Sh. Hareshbhai M Sakariya Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-1 vs. Dharmadev Finance (P.) Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 395(Guj); PCIT vs. RSA DIGI Prints (Tax Appeal No.503 of 2017 dated 06.09.2017 and Rohini Builders vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd.Trib) 265 ITR 360 (Guj) and deleted the addition on merit. 13. We find that the Assessing Officer has not made any specific comment on various documentary evidence furnished by assessee nor any independent investigation was carried out. Thus in absence of any adverse material collected by the Assessing Officer during the assessment against th…

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the case of CIT v. Ranchod Jivabhainakhava (ITA 50 of 2011 (Guj.). The ld Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ORRISSA CORPORATION LTD. 159 ITR 78 and of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the Case of ROHINI BUILDERS - 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd). 11. Learned DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal. He stated that Shri Praveen Agarwal, was entry provider and these share applicant Companies were used by Shri Praveen Agarwal, for providing accommodation entry. Per Contra, Ld Counsel submits that Assessing officer has used the statement of Shri Pravee…

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9158/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, the said order is not applicable to the facts of the 7…

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, the said order is not applicable to the facts of the 7…

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9156/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, the said order is not applicable to the facts of the 7…

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9155/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, the said order is not applicable to the facts of the 7…

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9154/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, the said order is not applicable to the facts of the 7…

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9153/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, the said order is not applicable to the facts of the 7…

MS. SHILPA MAYANK PARIKH,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1212/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, A-2, Atithi Bungalow, Revaba Bharuch Town Ship, Bharuch-392001 [Pan: Aespp 7558 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shailesh J. Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr

Section 68Section 69

…of the Revenue. Since both the issues are decided against the Revenue, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed being devoid of merit.” The ld. counsel further placing reliance on the decision in Rohini 9. Builders v. DCIT [2002] 76 TTJ 521 [in ITA No. 3860/AHD/1992 A.Y. 1989- 90], wherein it was held that the confirmations of bank accounts /PAN No. filed by the assessee before the AO. The assessee has discharged the initial onus which lays one in terms of section 68 by providing the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addressees, GIR Numbers/Permanent Account Numbers…

SHRI DINESH LADURAMJI CHOUDHARY,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), ( NEW WARD-2(2)(1), ), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1144/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1144/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dinesh Laduramji Vs The Income Tax Officer, Choudhary, 1051-52, Adarsh . Ward-5(1), Surat. Market-2, Ring Road, (New Ward -2(2)(1), Surat) Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Afepc 9017 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 68

…s of cash deposited n bank accounts of creditors, because under law, assessee can be asked to prove source of credits in its books of account but not source of source – Held, yes.” 12. The ld.Counsel further cited that the decision of Rohini Builders Vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 [Ahd. Tribunal]. The ld.Counsel further submitted that the AO has examined that lenders and also submitted in their third remand report dated 18.11.2013 after verification of ledger and copy of bank statements of the depositors for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011 wherein he is given a table stating the date of repayment of loan to all the…

CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (76 TTJ 521) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax