How many judgments cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.?

897 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 131, Section 148.

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 367,181 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 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor share capital and share premium paper company share application money addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 genuineness of the transaction section 131 section 133(6)entry operator unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

True-Man Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1158/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…n ITA No. 609/KOL/2018 order dated 16.10.2023 wherein this Tribunal under the similar set of facts and circumstances and placing reliance on various judgments including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay), Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 47 (Madhya Pradesh) and the recent judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreeleather…

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 10. In a case wherein the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act because the lenders of loan to assessee did not turn up before him [AO], the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78, held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged, if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the ITA. No.2475/M/21 CO. No.82/M/2023 A.Y No. 2008-09 Gehlot Construction source of cash d…

Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Udayan Grover v. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {ACIT – 26(3), BKC, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 PAN: ACLPG0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik Date of conclusion of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned…

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

…e of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 17. In a case wherein the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act because the lenders of loan to assessee did not turn up before him [AO], the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the creditors, the proper course wou…

Chordia Safedeposit and Vaults Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

…favour of M/S.Sherwali Corporation and M/S. Venkata Industries after depositing such cash in their bank account. The learned Counsel has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Orissa Coporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) for the proposition that without issuing summons under section 131 of the Act to a party who filed confirmation, no adverse inference can be drawn by the AO. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that 17 ITA NO.509-/JP/…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…existing as summons have been served on them. ITA.No.3555/Del./2015 Shri Ajay Sharma, Ghaziabad. (Refer Honble Supreme court in Orissa Corporation Page 23 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. case 159 ITR 78). We further find that no cogent material is brought on records in assessment order by Ld AO to demolish the copious evidences furnished by assessee. We furtehr find that Ld AO has no where confronted any back material to assessee as stated in facts above. We find that Ld AO nowhere made any independent enquiry from concerned and competent AO of s…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

…rove otherwise. The ld. A/R, therefore, submitted that any addition made in that scenario has to be deleted. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and various Hon’ble High Courts, namely, CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); ITO vs. Cygnus Developers (I) (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 282 (Kol) of 2012, dated 2-3-2016] & CIT vs. Gagandeep 8 I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Infrastructure P. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom), to buttress his arguments on the issue that where an assessee has filed the evidences before the A…

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

…o prove otherwise. The ld. A/R, therefore, submitted that any addition made in that scenario has be deleted. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and various Hon’ble High Courts, namely, CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); ITO vs. Cygnus Developers (I) (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 282 (Kol) of 2012, dated 2-3-2016] & CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom), to buttress his arguments on the issue that where an assessee has filed the evidences before the Assessing Officer concerning the transactions, and the Assessing Officer has not carrie…

M/S. Delighted Holdings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcir, Cir-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…nal appearance of the directors of the purchaser companies. As there was no compliance this addition u/s 68 is made. In our view this is against the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation(P)Ltd (1986)159 ITR 78 (SC). We find that the share purchasers are all income tax assesses and they have filed return of income and the payments were made through account payee cheques and the share purchasers have confirmed purchase of the shares. There is no evidence with the revenue that the sale in question is a bogus sale. Under the circumstances the issue is wheth…

ITO, WD. -4(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…bmitted several judicial pronouncements to the effect that mere non- appearance of the share applicant is no basis for invoking provisions of Sec. 68 which includes the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "In this case 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 assesses. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at t…

Jayem Realty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

ITA 2216/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ection 263. …” In support of its contention, the assessee relied on certain judicial pronouncements including CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2009) 183 Taxman 277(Delhi), CIT vs. Prarmeshwar Bohra, [(2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj)], Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj HC), CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd vs 394 ITR 680 (Bom), CIT vs. Apeak Infotech 88 Taxmann.com 695 (Bom HC), ITO VIS Arogya Bharti Health Park Pvt Ltd ITA No.2943/ Mum/2014. Etc. Page No. 5 Jayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. Pr.CIT re…

Autumn Builders Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)

…r non- appearance of the investors before the AO could not justify the addition when all the evidences are before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) 4 I.T.A. No.883/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Autumn Builders Ltd. Finally the ld AR prayed before…

DCIT, Cir-43, Kol, Kolkata vs. S.K.Agarwala & Co, Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 486/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 131oSection 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 68

…) CIT –vs.- Dataware Private Limited [ITAT No. 263 of 2011, GA No. 2856 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011 (Calcutta High Court); (ii) DCIT –vs.- Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), order dated 19.03.2001; (iii) CIT –vs.- Orissa Corporation Pvt. Limited [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), judgment dated 19.03.1986. The ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) after taking into consideration the evidences filed by the assessee as well as by these 8 & S.K. Agarwala & Co. lenders is very reasoned and speaking one and, therefore, the same may kindly be affirmed by dismissing the appeal of the R…

DCIT, Cir-43, Kol, Kolkata vs. S.K.Agarwala & Co, Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 131oSection 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 68

Divyamala Prakash, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tezpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Divyamala Prakash Ito, Ward-1, Tezpur Flat No. 6A, Syndicate Marble, Six Vs. Mile Radhanagar, Guwahati-784036. Pan: Bpmpp 6934 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -1, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…nforce their attendance before ld. AO. 1.8. That Madam, the main plank on which the assessing officer made the addition was because the Loan Givers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (F) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) : 1986 TaxPub(DT) 1425 (SC) and the Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj/ ; (2003) 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0305 (Guj-HC), has held that onus of the assessee (In whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is f established and act…

D V Properties Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1(1)(1), Surat

ITA 519/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.519/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) D.V. Properties Pvt, Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 748-749 Golden Plaza Market, Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1) Vs Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Pan No. Aaacd 8392 B Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.519/SRT/2023 (AY 2015-16) (Hearing in Physical Court) D.V. Properties Pvt, Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 748-749 Golden Plaza Market, Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1) Vs Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. PAN No. AAACD 8392 B Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mehul Shah, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr-DR अपील प…

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

…per law and procedure laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Ranchod 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 circ…

D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

… Sri Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. CIT 283 ITR 377 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Down Town Hospitals Ltd. 267 ITR 439 (Gau)  Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) Full Bench  ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 132  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [159 ITR 78 (SC)]  Balurghat Transport co. vs. ACIT 63 TTJ 303 (Cal ITAT).  ITO vs. Chichinga Fatika Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1279/Kol/2008; Assessment Year 2005-06  Midas Golden Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 124 TTJ 25  Aquatech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 4650/Del/2007; Assessment Year 1997-98; dated 29.08.2008 7 I.T.A.…

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Puja Synthetics Private Limited, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 87/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 115JSection 153ASection 263

…has been satisfactorily explained or not remains within the realm of appreciation of evidence; and the Courts have consistently held that such a matter does not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the case of CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under- “13. In the case, the assessee had given the name and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in theknowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in 13. In this case, the assessee had given the names the file of the Revenue. The R…