CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78Supreme Court of India1986#53 most cited

What is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

897

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orissa Corporation · 159 ITR 78 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · burden of proof · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · non-compliance of summons · share capital · Section 131 · Section 133(6) · adverse inference

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 131Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorshare capital and share premiumpaper companyshare application moneyaddition u/s 68addition under section 68genuineness of the transactionsection 131section 133(6)entry operatorunexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva vs. Amodini Vyapar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1481/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Amodini Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Kalpanalaya, Avirampur, Po- 7Th Floor, Nadt Building, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Budge Budge, Vs. Kolkata-700107 Kolkata-700137, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2332G Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 14ASection 68Section 68o

…Ld. AR stated that even the information sought by the AO in the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act were duly complied. The ld AR thus heavily defended the appellate order by relying 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. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find tha…

Shri Lakshmichand Pribhdas Jaisinghani, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271ASection 59ASection 69A

…- Rohini Builders v. DCIT (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat High Court): - Held that the mere non-response of creditors to Section 133(6) notices does not justify additions if the assessee has provided adequate evidence. - CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (Supreme Court): - Ruled that once the assessee establishes the identity and genuineness of transactions, the onus shifts to the department to challenge the evidence. - Sonicwall Technology Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore): - Observed that additions based solely on non-response to Section 133(6) notices are unwarranted when the ass…

Raj Kumari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Jaipur

ITA 1024/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Hitiesha Ruhela, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…with him either in terms of section 68 or on general principle. (2) Kanhialal Jangid Vs CIT CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Rajasthan high court) In the case of cash credits, confirmation and existence of the credit is enough. (3) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (159 ITR 78 (SC) It was held that the assessee had given names and addresses of the alleged creditors, which were income tax assessees, their index nos. were also in the file of the Revenue, however, Revenue after issuing notices u/s 131 did not pursue the matter further and examined the source of income of the alleged creditors. There was no effort made to p…

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Vinod Nirman Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vinod Nirman Private Dcit Limited 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vill Kalachara, Chanditala Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Kolkata- Vs. P.O. Kolkata, Kolkata- 700107, West Bengal 712702, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv5313J Co No. 44/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 1540/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14) Vinod Nirman Private Dcit Limited 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vill Kalachara, Chanditala Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Kolkata- Vs. P.O. Kolkata, Kolkata- 700107, West Bengal 712702, West Bengal (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 26Section 68

…of the assessee by holding that mere non-production of director cannot be the ground for making any addition in the hands of assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom). 07. In view of the facts and the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and consequently uphold the same. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 08. Coming to CO of the assessee, the ass…

Evaluationz India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any reason to uphold the orders of the learned lower authorities confirming the disallowance of Rs

ITA 1103/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69C

…section 133 (6) with no additional efforts cannot be a valid ground for addition in the hands of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case Page 8 of 12 of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Anis Ahmad & Sons (2008) 161 Taxman 84 (SC). He further submitted that when the assessee has produced the documents establishing the genuineness, merely because the parties did not appear before the learned assessing officer, no addition could have been made. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Bombay High C…

DCIT CC 7(4), Mumbai vs. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt Ltd (Now Known As Imperial Renaissaice Reniasance Reality Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 2045/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Cc-7(4), Mumbai V/S. Poddar Renaissance Reality Room No. 659, Aaykar बनाम Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Bhavan, M.K. Road, Imperial Renaissance Mumbai-400020 Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 501/601, Aqua Marine, Carter Road, Mumbai-400050030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcp2657R Appellant/अपीलाथ" .. Respondent/"ितवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…egard c because the party was not produced before him. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in thecases of CIT vs Orisssa cases of CIT vs Orisssa Corporation (P) Ltd. 1986 159 ITR 78 (SC) and CIT v/s. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. Corporation (P) Ltd. 1986 159 ITR 78 (SC) and CIT v/s. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. Corporation (P) Ltd. 1986 159 ITR 78 (SC) and CIT v/s. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. (2017) 88 taxmann.com 502 (Bom) (2017) 88 taxmann.com 502 (Bom) 6.7 As regard the shares issued to 6.7 As regard the shares issued to Mis…

Spectra Equipment Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 500/HYD/2023[Assessment Year 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Akanksha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Narmada, CIT-DR for Shri Madan Mohan Meena
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…taxation, It was also the contention of the appellant that & is the responsibility of the AO to prove that the credits are unexplained. In its reliance, appellant has quoted the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 and Mis Essan Remedies Ltd. vs DCIT ITA No. 256/Del/04. 5.4 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the contention of the appellant. The Govt. of India announced the demonetisation scheme on 08.11.2016 and the last date for depositing specified bank notes was 30.12.2016. It is seen that appellant has deposited a huge amount of Rs. 1,…

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.87/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dayal Cotspin Ltd. New Radhakishan Plots ……………. Appellant Akola 444 001 PAN – AACCD4041K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Akola Circle, Akola Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 26/11/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 04/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissio…

Mr. Waseem Ulla Khan, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…an, Bangalore Page 8 of 9 to the conclusion that it was indicative of the colouring device adopted by the assessee to give legitimacy to its unaccounted and undisclosed cash deposits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd 159 ITR 78 has held that “It is the duty of the AO to substantiate his finding with appropriate evidence and not to rely on conjecture”. In view of the above, we find no merit to sustain the addition made u/s 68 of the Act as the conditions i.e. nature, source and creditworthiness has been fully established by the assessee and the assessee has offered satisf…

Girdhari Lal Choughary, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bellary

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2092/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 69A

…urns should be sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 69A of the Act. The revenue has not brought forward any evidence to suggest that the cash deposits were from unaccounted sources. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) held that "it is the duty of the AO to substantiate his finding with appropriate evidence and not to rely on conjecture." As such, the cash and the income disclosed in earlier returns filed by the assessee provides a reasonable explanation for the deposits made during the demonetization period. 12. In light of the above, we are of the view that…

Rapid Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 768/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…iance to summons issued u/s 131 to the assessee as well as subscribers when all the corroborating evidences are furnished before the authorities. We find support from the following decisions in our conclusion namely CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom), Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol), ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020.Considering these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct th…

Varima Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 68

…assessee has filed all the evidences/details before the AO as well as ld CIT(A) and the AO has not pointed out any defect or deficiency in those evidences. We find support from a series of decisions namely namely (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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra)has observed and hel…

Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.399/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia SA 10 to 13, 2nd Floor, Chitalsar ……………. Appellant Manpada B.O. 400 607 PAN–AAPPJ3021M v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Amravati Circle, Amravati Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 07/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The assessee has filed the captioned appeal challenging the impugned…

M/S Titivate Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-91(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

…ed u/s. 131 of the Act. The Ld. AR stated that even the information sought by the 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); (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. 6. The Ld. D.R strongly controverted and opposed the arguments as put forth by the Ld. A…

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

…f CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) it was held that assessee need not prove “source of the source”. 1.12. On similar findings, Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) in which the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter…

Sahil Singla, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

…P (Civil) Diary no. 7367/2020 held that: "The non rejection of explanation in the assessment order would amount to the AO accepting the view of the assessee", thus taking a view/forming an opinion". The Hon'ble Apex Court in ‘CIT vs Orissa Corporation Ltd.’, 159 ITR 78 (SC) , held that : In this case the Revenue did not examine the source of income of alleged creditor to find out whether they were creditworthy or not or were such who could have advanced these alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do anything further. The assessee…

Heritage Hospitals Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 4090/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…se subscriber company personally who admitted the transaction with the assessee company. In the case of M/s Chanakya Info Solutions Pvt Ltd, its Bank statement was also filed. 10. The ld AR of the assessee relied on: (a) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd 159 ITR 78(SC) (b) CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd & Ors 361 ITR 0220(Del) (c) Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 216 CTR 0195(SC) (d) CIT Vs. Vrindavan Farms Pvt Ltd(Del) ITA No. 71/2015 dated 12.08.2015. (e) CIT Vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt Ltd (Del)ITA No. 169 of 2017 dated 14.03.2017. (f) Earthmetal Electrical Pvt Ltd. (SC) SLP No. 21073 of 1999 dated 30.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…o of the following judgments in support of his contention in this ground of appeal, which are given below: "1.CIT Vs Stellar Investments reported in 192 ITR 287 (Delhi) DCIT Vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC) Metachem 245 ITR 360 (MPHC) Nem Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. I.T.A.C. LTD. (ITA 1194/2007) Rajokri Farms Pvt Ltd (ITA 1410/2008); Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331 Lab Chand Bohar vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 HC (Raj). Aravali Trading Co vs ITO 220 CTR 622 HC (Raj); Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. Micro Melt (P.) Ltd.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1(2, Nagpur vs. M/S. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…der of Tribunal specifically records that the CIT (Appeals) had rightly deleted the addition based on appreciation of evidence on record and after taking into consideration the ratio of theApex Court decision in case of C.I.T. v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 as well as this High Court in case of D.C.I.T. v. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360. It is found from the record that the 18 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 creditors have advanced the monies through bank and placed evidence in this regard on record, are assessed to income tax. In the circumstances, the position in law is well set…

Leading Age Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1114/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1113 and 1114/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Leading Age Developers Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of Mohammedi No.1, Commercial Income Tax, Peru Chawal, Dr. B A Road, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagar, Lalbaug, Mumbai Parel, Mumbai – 400012 (PAN : AABCL5948G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, CA Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024 O R D E…