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 366,470 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.

M/S Fairdeal Information Technology Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Delhi

In the result all the three grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2793/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Fairdeal Information Income Tax Officer, Technology Private Limited, Ward-9(1), 116A, First Floor, Somdutt Vs. New Delhi. Chamber-1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aaacf9581G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

…es who had not responded. It is observed by us, that the ld. CIT(A) despite of fact that no enquiry was made from the remaining three loan creditors, had deleted the addition. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) has held 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 non-compliance of summons issued by th…

Pradip Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(7), Hmt Bhavan, Bellary Road

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

ITA 2270/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 68Section 69A

…339 (ITAT Kolkata)] 4. The addition under section 68/69A is bad in law and deserves to be deleted, as the appellant has discharged the initial burden of proof by explaining the nature and source of cash deposits. Reliance: CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [159 ITR 78 (SC)] 5. Without prejudice, once the entire transaction is disclosed, documented, and taxed under ‘Capital Gains', invoking section 68/69A amounts to double addition on the same sum. Reliance: ACIT v. Kulwant Singh [85 taxmann.com 112 (ITAT Amritsar)]. 6. The CIT(A) also failed to consider that if the appellant had been permitted to file a return…

Dhansamridhi Finance Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(2), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1377/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dhansamridhi Finance Pvt. Ltd., Asst. CIT, Shalimar House-5, Circle-7(2), Community Centre, Vs. New Delhi. Saket, Delhi-110001. PAN-AAACV1597J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA & Ms. Tanya Upreti, Adv. Department by Ms.Kranti, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 06/02/2026 ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 20.02.2025 for the Assessment…

ACIT Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Ess Aar Automotive Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 9692/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…no addition can be made. In the case of the appellant AO had not brought any material on record to dislodge the veracity of the evidences filed by the appellant. It is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Orissa Vs Orrisa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) that, "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 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…

Kameshwar Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…then the AO cannot make addition on the sole basis of non- compliance. The case of the assessee find support from the decisions of various judicial forums including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 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 Section 13…

Geeta Babu Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 138/MUM/2026[AY 2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 292BSection 68

…e bankers. The assessing officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account holders, Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. The Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) 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 assessee's. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notice under section 131 at the instance of the respond…

Pandian Hari, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 11(40, Chennai

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

ITA 2598/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2598/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pandian Hari, The Income Tax Officer, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Thambuchetty Street, Chennai Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…on under section 250 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that section 68 is not applicable to deposits duly recorded in audited books and supported by documentary :- 5 -: evidence, placing reliance on the decisions in CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78, SC), CIT v. Bhaichand Gandhi (141 ITR 67, Bom), ITO v. Surana Traders (56 taxmann.com 304, ITAT Kolkata) and Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed v. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad). The Ld. AR also pointed out that the FAA has ignored binding Government Notifications and CBDT Circular No. 03/2017 dated 20.01.2017 clarifying that deposit of Specified Bank Notes wit…

Asstt. Commisioner, Mumbai vs. Supreme Lake View Bungalows Private Limited, Powai, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5735/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…th from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Hatti Vs.CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 78]. It is trite law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. 5.4 Upon due consideration of the factual matrix, we find that no infirmity could befound in the impugned order. Therefore, by confirming the same, we dismiss the appeal.” Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ITO v. Sankalp Corporate Services(P…

Goldmoon Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2086/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

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

…ence. 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 two cases. In defense of his arguments the ld AR relied on the following decisions: CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 l (SC); (i) (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. 7. We have perused the above decisions and find it has been held in all the dec…

Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…s vitiated by procedural irregularities. 8. The additions are based оп mere assumptions and conjecture, without conducting any proper inquiry, despite the appellant having disclosed the sources and possessing supporting evidence [CIT v. Orissa Corp. (P) Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC)]. 9. The respondent failed to conduct any independent verification before making or sustaining the additions, thereby rendering the order perverse and arbitrary. 10. The impugned order violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution India, as it is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the principles of due process. 11. The appellant has…

Abhiruchi Marketing P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 934/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abhiruchi Marketing P. Ltd. C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Ito, Ward 7(1) Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite Chowringhee Square, Fifth Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca1408B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR
Section 131Section 132(6)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…he assessee. Moreover the addition u/s 68 of the cannot be made merely on the ground that there was no compliance to notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC): “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 Section 131 at the instance of the respondent, did not pur…

Jigna Kundan Bhatt, Virar vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5265/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Cen. Cir. 1(1), Jigna Kundan Bhatt R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Plot No. 277, Kundan Pratistha Bhavan, M. Mansion, Agashi Road, Vs. K. Road, Mumbai- Virar (W), Dist-Thane, 400 020 Thane, Maharashtra- 401303 Pan/Gir No. Afdpb3867Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…it that the assessee is required to establish only the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, and once primary evidences are furnished, no addition can be made merely on suspicion:  CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC)  PCIT v. Ami Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (424 ITR 219) (Bom.) 8 Jigna Kundan Bhatt  DCIT v. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360) (Guj.) 19. It was also pointed out that a similar addition made in the hands of the assessee’s son, in respect of borrowings from the same lender family, stood deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jay Kun…

M/S Blupex Niryat Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2346/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: the AO name, address, PAN, balance sheet, bank statement etc. to prove the genuineness of share application money received. The ADIT (Inv.), Unit 3(4) issued summons under Section 131 of the Act to the allottee company which was not responded. We note that the assessee has issued 10,000 equity shares at the face value of Rs.10/- and premium of Rs.90/-. Consequently, the AO added the amount under Section 68 of the Act which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…the ground that there was no compliance to summons u/s 131 of the Act by allottee company. In our opinion, this cannot be a ground for making the addition in the hands of the assessee as has been held in the case of 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. Consequently, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the additi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

For Appellant: ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…all necessary details, including Names and confirmations of loan creditors. Documentary evidence supporting the transactions, including bank account details and financial statements. Reliance is placed on the judgment in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [159 ITR 78 (SC)), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the assessee provides the names, confirmations, and the loan creditors are income-tax assessees, the initial burden of proof is discharged. Despite this, the AO made an arbitrary addition without issuing notices under relevant provisions for further verification of the transactions. 5.4 In Th…

Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…cts of the assessee’s case are clearly distinguishable from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 3.10. The ld. AR also relied on the decision of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn, (P.) Ltd.[1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) dated 19-03-1986, wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that where the assessee has given the names and addresses of the creditors and it was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assesses, then the Revenue apart from issuing notice u/s 131 of the Act at the instance of the assessee did not pursue the matter fur…

Nidhi Rani, Panipat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…d enquiry was made by deputing ward inspector and made the addition of unsecured loan received by holding the same as unexplained money. For this, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). He therefore, requested that the addition made deserves to be deleted. The ld. AR for the assessee also placed reliance on the following judgments:-  PCIT vs. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd., (2023) 156 taxmann.com 75, High Court of Gujarat.  PCIT vs. Neotech Education Foundation, (2023) 292 Taxman 199, High Court of Gujarat.  PCIT vs. Ambe Trade…

M/S. Akshara Abasan Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1638/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…wing decisions: (i) Pr. CIT vs. Jealous Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. ITAT/138/2025 [dt. 28.10.2025] (ii) Pr. CIT vs. Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. ITAT/114/2025 (iii) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (iv) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); 6. The Ld. D.R opposed the arguments as put forth by the Ld. A.R by submitting that the share application money was received by the assessee from the aforesaid two subscribers who were not having any creditworthiness and also did not reply to the notices u/s 133(6) and u/s 131 of the…

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…enquiry was made by deputing ward inspector and made the addition of unsecured loans received by holding the same as unexplained money. For this, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). Ld.AR also placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Balwan Singh in ITA No.2869/Del/2019 order dated 07.08.2023 and also in the case of ACIT vs Filatex India and Others in ITA No.4635/Del/2024 & Others order dated 30.06.2025. 7. Ld.AR also submits that AO has not issued any show cause notic…

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Om Trilok Realty & Infrastructure, Mumbai

ITA 4048/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shree Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Deputy Commissioner M/S Om Trilok Realty & Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Infrastructures, Shop No. 6Th Room No. 655, 8, Botawala Building, V Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 82086, Raghavji Road, S M. K. Road, Mumbai- Gowalia Tank, 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai-400036 Pan No. Aabfo8779M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta : Shri R A Dhyani, Cit-Dr Respondent By : 17.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 10.12.2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: 17.09.2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…on. This issue is dealt by the Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau). The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). In the case of CIT v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P & H) the court held that "where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party's account were in fact received from the third party and are genuine, he discharges the onus. In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee's income in the absence of any…

Jay Kundan Bhatt, Virar vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, we delete the addition of INR.16,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act. Ground No.2 raised by the Assessee, is therefore, allowed

ITA 5264/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri B. Arun
Section 143(3)Section 68

…by the Assessee. Thus, the Assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus under Section 68 of the Act. In support reliance was placed by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee on the following decisions (a) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC) (1986), (b) PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., 424 ITR 219 (Bom) (2020, and (c) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (2003). 15. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative refuted the submission made on behalf of the Assessee and placed reliance upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A). It was submitted that a sear…