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.

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 52/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…rkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd, [2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) (ii) The Pr. CIT, Central-1 v. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd., [2018] 99 taxmann.com 45 (SC) CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) (iii) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 3.4 The Law on Section 68 fixes the burden of proof on the Assessee to prove the nature and source of credit appearing in his books. If the Assessee is able to discharge the initial onus by submitting evidence to prove the requisite ingredients of section 68, then the onus will shift to the Revenue to put material on record to the effect tha…

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (for the Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 463/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmai.T.(S.S.)A. Nos.: 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 463/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (For The Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)......……………………………Appellant [Pan: Aadcm 6255 F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata.....................................Respondent Appearances By: Assessee Represented By – Sh. S.M. Surana, Adv. Department Represented By – Sh. Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 1St, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 31St, 2023 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [In Short Ld. 'Cit(A)'] Dated 08.08.2022 For The Assessment Years (In Short ‘Ay’) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015- 16. I.T.(S.S.)A. Nos.: 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 463/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (For The Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.). It(Ss)A No. 55/Kol/2022

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…g u/s 153A of the Act and therefore, the addition made by the AO merely on the basis that the subscribers could not be produced for verification is bad in law. In defence of his argument Ld. A/R relied on the decisions of i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. in 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 136, iii) Crystal Networks (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 & iv) M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 282/KOL/2022 and M/s. Lucky Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 2501/KOL/2019 dated 23.02.2023 which are discussed as under: a) In the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra) the Hon’bl…

ITO, WD.-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Moonview Conclave Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 34/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Moonview Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata. Vs. 63, Radha Bazar Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001. (PAN: AAHCM7818C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-7, K…

ACIT, Cir.-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gold Rush Sales and Service Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 18/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 68

…rement of section 68 of the Act. We find support Page 5 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 18/KOL/2021 C.O. No. 9/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Gold Rush Sales and Service Limited. from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. in 159 ITR 78 (SC) (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “That in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under Se…

Shri Chandubhai Parshottambhai Borad, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 143/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandubhai Parshottambhai Income Tax Officer, Borad, 162, 163, Akshardham Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Vs Society, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Varachha Road, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No: Ajfpb 2959 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…Assessing Officer and confirmed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) are liable to be deleted. To support his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following case law:  CIT vs. Daulatram Rawat Mal (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)  Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC)  Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj)  CIT vs. Pragati Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2005) 278 ITR 170 (Guj) 9. On the addition of agricultural income as “income from other sources”, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer doubted the agricultural income on…

Taruna Kataria, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mrs. Taruna Kataria, The Ito-19(2)(2), 404, Bule Heaven, Nehru Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Acgpk 7391 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhavesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR

Section 68

…unsel cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel relied on the following relied on the following decisions: i. CIT v. Orissa Corporati CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) on P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii. ACIT v. K.K. Traders (2017) 83 taxmann.com 350 (Chennai- ACIT v. K.K. Traders (2017) 83 taxmann.com 350 (Chennai ACIT v. K.K. Traders (2017) 83 taxmann.com 350 (Chennai Trib.) iii. CIT v. M/s S.M. Construction (ITA No. 2471/Mum/2016) CIT v. M/s S.M. Construction (ITA No. 2471/Mum/2016) CIT v. M/s S.M. Con…

DCIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Luxora Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1025/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit-15(1)(2) V. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd 459, Ayakar Bhawan Unit No. 150, Avior Corporate Park Nirmal Galaxy Lbs Road M.K. Road, Mumbai- 40020 Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT-15(1)(2) v. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd 459, Ayakar Bhawan Unit No. 150, Avior Corporate Park Nirmal Galaxy LBS Road M.K. Road, Mumbai- 40020 Mulund (W), Mumbai- 400080 PAN: AABCO3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. K.P. Devani Department Represented by : Ms. Smiti Samant Date of conclusion of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by th…

Arihant Plantations Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 474/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ow have failed to carry out further investigations. The Ld. A.R submitted that the addition sustained in such a scenario cannot be sustained by strongly relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of STL Extrusion P Ltd. [2010] 333 ITR 269 (Cal), decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangeswari Metal P Ltd. in [2014] 361 ITR 10 (Del). The Ld. A.R therefore prayed before the Bench that the addition so sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly 4 I.T.A. No.474/…

Vigneshwars Cement Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…filed necessary documents qua the loan creditor as stated above and even the interest was paid after deduction of tax at source. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the assessee has filed all the documents then the AO is in a position to proceed further in the matter and addition cannot be made on the ground that the assessee has not proved identity and creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction. In this case, we note that Sectio…

ITO, WD-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Trinetra Vincom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and Cross

ITA 37/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income-tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Trinetra Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Vs. 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata-700007. (PAN: AACCT9844N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 5/Kol/2023 In ITA No.37/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Trinetra Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 9(1), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate Department by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 10.08.…

Sandeep Maloo, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsandeep Maloo Vs. Dcit-Cc-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afcpm7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…P a g e | 1 Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT-CC-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AFCPM7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Jayant Bhatt Respondent by : Kishore Dhule Date of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed aga…

Ekta Garg, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, CA

Section 68

…spect of all four parties/lenders and even he did not make any enquiry from the Assessing Officer of said lenders about the said transactions with the assessee. Therefore in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) the addition cannot be sustained. The learned counsel submitted that amounts received from M/s. Shri Ganesh Rolling Mills and from Shri Govindam Casting Pvt. Ltd. were, in fact, the amounts received back by the assessee against loans given to these parties during earlier years. Hence, when loan given by assessee in earlier years stood accepte…

M/S. White Willow, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.370/Srt/2022 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S White Willow Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat, Vishram Apartment, Opp. Vs Anavil Business Centre, Sawlani Estate Bungalows, Pal Hazira Road, Adajan, Beside Trinidhi Apartment, Surat-395007 Ghod Dod Road, Regent Mall, Surat-395007 Pan No. Aabfw 4804 F ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…el for the assessee relied upon the following case law:  DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 7 M/s White Willow  Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj)  CIT vs. Pragati Co.Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj)  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Lt. 159 ITR 78 (SC) 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that assessing officer issued notice under section 133(6) to the lenders. Such notice was duly served upon lenders and lenders responded and furnished their reply. The Assessing Officer simply brushed aside such reply by holding only part details were furnished by lenders. The ass…

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. Shreen Hire Purchase (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 22/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,................................Appellant Ward-5(1), Kolkata Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Shreen Hire Purchase (P) Limited,...........Respondent 89, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan: Aamcs4023L] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…the Act and copies of the assessment order are placed in the paper book. The ld. A.R. while referring to the appellate order, which refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-vs.- Orissa Corporation Pvt. Limited reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), argued that where the assessee has filed all the evidences comprising names and addresses of the alleged creditors and it was in the knowledge of Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees and their PANs were available with the Revenue and the Revenue not pursing the matter apart from issuing summons under section 131 of the A…

Aahar Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1931/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…f the information/details filed by the assessee, merely for the reason that the summons were not complied with by the subscribers is unsustainable. In defense of his arguments the ld AR relied on series of decisions namely CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC) , Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Cal) and ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012.The ld AR therefore prayed that the addition as sustained by the ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 6. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied on the orders of authorities below by submitting that the transactions of raisi…

ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodpoint Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 58/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…he Act were not complied with. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that no adverse inference could be drawn due to non-compliance of summons u/s 131 of the Act by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orisssa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) which is on the issue of share premium. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the issuance of share premium at higher amount is a management decision only and in absence of any statutory provisions in the Act to the contrary and there being no bar on issue of share at high premium, the same cannot be questioned. Further the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.5 noted th…

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

…on." 29. The Supreme Court noted, following the earlier decision 29. The Supreme Court noted, following the earlier decision 29. The Supreme Court noted, following the earlier decision in CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. in CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80 (SC) that where the conclusion of th Taxman 80 (SC) that where the conclusion of th Taxman 80 (SC) that where the conclusion of the Tribunal was not unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence, was not unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence, was not unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence,…

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata. vs. Narsingh Ispat Limited., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 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…