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.

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 230/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ments furnished during the assessment proceedings. Not only the source was explained but also source of source was very well established beyond any doubt.” 22. The assessee relied upon the following judgments: i. Orissa Corporation (P.) Limited, reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Metachem Industries, reported in 245 ITR 160 (MP) iii. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd., reported in (2013) 356 ITR 65 (MP) iv. Ashokpal Daga (HUF) vs. CIT, reported in 220 ITR 452 (MP) v. CIT vs. Barjatiya Children Trust, reported in 225 ITR 640 (MP) vi. ACIT vs. M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 736/Ind/2019 vii. CIT vs…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 229/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

DCIT Central-1, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 228/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Grace Development Associates, Mumbai

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

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…tion. As held by the Hon. Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau) at p. 482. The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the apex court in the caseof CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. Reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it is held as under: Held, that in this case the respondent had given the names address of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assesses. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under Section 131 at the instance of th…

M/S. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 11/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 8(3), 21, Camac Street Vs Kolkata Happy House Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aafcr7565P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 14/12/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) On 14.12.2022 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,37,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 234ASection 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…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…d merely for the reason that the lenders had not complied with the notices issued u/s.131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act. In support of his contention the Ld. AR had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ii) DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) (iii) Espirit Finco (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 185 TTJ (Delhi) 162. 21. We have deliberated at length on the contentions advanced by the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities as regards the aforesaid issue in hand, i.e, sus…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

Kanchan Plastics Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 133(6)Section 68

…lly acting and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination reached." P a g e 7 | 12 Assessment Year : 2017-18 8. He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein, in para 13, it has been held as follows: “13. 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 income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under s. 131 at t…

ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Fauji Exim Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…audited balance sheets. Appellant is maintaining stock register and no payments were made in cash. No addition was made by the AO in preceding AY whereas appellant has made similar transaction with the aforesaid parties. 5.5 In the case of Anis Ahmed & Sons 297 ITR 441 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "for the assessment year 1983-84 the assessing authority had accepted the claim of the assessee that it had conducted its business as commission agent. The traders who appeared before the assessing authority to give evidence had supported the claim of the assessee. The assessee could not be held responsible f…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gemini Commerce, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), M/S. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 8A, Brown Field Row Kolkata - 700027 [Pan : Aadcg0842J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 21/09/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Six (6) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Revenue Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,61,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Sale Of Unquoted Shares In The Course Of

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…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…

M/S Kashiram Atmaram, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of assessee is allowed

ITA 236/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.236/Srt/2022 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) Kashiram Atmaram Deputy Commissioner Of 3/1949, Siddhi Sheri, Income-Tax, Vs Salabatpura, Surat-395003 Central Circle-(1)(1)(1), Pan No. Aadfk 2670 H Room No.108, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…re Assessing Officer to discard the evidence furnished by assessee and no contrary evidence whatsoever was brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decision;  CIT Vs Orrisa corporation (P) Limited 1986 159 ITR 78 SC,  CIT Vs Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 TAXMAN Gujrat,  CIT VS M.K. Brothers (1987) 39 TAXMAN 547 –GUJ,  Lanchand P Dhariwal vs ITO ITA No 2623/Ahd/2016 dated 11,02.2022 8 M/s Kashiram Atmaram 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR submits that assessee submitted the cop…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns (ix). CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (x). CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 I…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

PCIT-07, Delhi vs. M/S Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 135 / 2023HC Delhi07 Mar 2023

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…credit which lay upon it. Merely because notice under section 133(6) issued to the creditor which was not complied with, the addition is not justified placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (sq. In that case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors who were income-tax assessees and their index numbers were on the file of the Revenue. Apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the assessee, the revenue did not pursue the matter further. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Suprem…

M/S Balaji Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…3 5.10.Ld. Counsel also submitted that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “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 a…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

…t be ground they failed to appear before Assessing Officer, could not be ground to treat those credits as non those credits as non-genuine. In the case of Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-taxv.Orissa Corpn, (P.) taxv.Orissa Corpn, (P.) Ltd.[1986] 159 ITR 78 Ltd.[1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the allege…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, both revenue’s appeal and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2712/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 09/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 08/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafh0253L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) C.O. 8 & 9 /Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav (DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)

…oceedings as well as the remand report proceedings. Thus, the purchases made by the appellant from these parties should be considered as genuine. For this proposition, the appellant has relied upon the decisions in the case of (i) Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ii) Nikunk Eximp Enterprises, ITXAL No.5604 of 2010 (iii) U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading co. 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) (iii) Brij Pal Sharma, 333 ITR 229 (P&H) (iv) Hi Lux Automotive (P) Ltd., 183, Taxman 260 (Del) (v) Rajesh P. Soni 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.) (vi) Babulal C. Borana vs. ITO ) 282 ITR 251 (Bom.) and ITO vs. Kanchwala Gems 122 TTJ 854…

Smt. Ritu Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

…n the records. Where the assessee gave the name and address of the creditor and furnished PAN No., merely issue of notice to the creditor and not pursuing the matter further by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the nature and source of credit entries that lay on the assessee. We therefore, hold that the impugned addition of Rs. 37,02,500/- under section 68 made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not rest on sound legal footing. We delete the same. 31. In the result, appeal of th…

Inspa Interior & Exterior Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, DR

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

…l. 9. Ld. Counsel also submitted that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “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 12 Inspa Interior & Exterior Products Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart fr…