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 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. Ajit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2448/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…7.2. 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…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Minimed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3585/MUM/2019[A.Y- 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 3585/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. M/s. Minimed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. ITO-14(2)(3) Room No. 457 7/1, Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan Sion Trombay Road M.K. Road Chembur, Mumbai-400 071. Marine Lines Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AABCM2711L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi Department by Shri Chetan M. Kacha Date of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 2…

Singh Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT-Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2670/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2014-15 Singh Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 9, Bougain Villa Marg, Circle-24(2), Dlf Phase-2, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001. Pan: Aajcs3083M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ayushi Gupta, Ca & Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under:- “That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - 8, Dated 01/02/2019 Is Bad In Law • & On Facts. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,86,50,000/- Representing Unsecured Loan Creditors U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. • The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessee Has Failed To Discharge The Onus Of Proving Credit-Worthiness Of Lenders. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law By Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46A For Additional Evidence. • That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts By Stating That The Assessee Has Not Made Any Application U/R 46A For The Admission Of Additional Evidences. The Assessee Had Duly Filed An Application U/R 46A Dated 15/01/2019 For Additional Evidences Along With The Submissions & Other Evidences Which The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Consider & Thereby Incorrectly Alleged At Pg. 8,1St Para, 3Rd Line That No Application U/R 46A Has Been Filed. • That The Appellant Craves To Amend/Alter/Modify The Grounds Of Appeal And/Or To Raise Additional Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Ms Ayushi Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…d money/income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. The ld. AR has placed reliance on various judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC); judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictionall High Court of Delhi in the case of Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd., 354 ITR 282 (Del); the judgement in the case of Real Time Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 306 ITR 35; and the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of AI Developers Pvt. Ltd., reported as 46 ITR (T) 321-ITAT Delhi, and other orders of the coordinate…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4038/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3117/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 3039, 3117 & 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09, 2014-15, 2011-12) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT,CC-7(3) 602, 6 th Floor, Petit Tower, August Aaykar Bhavan, R.No. 655, Vs. Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai-400 036 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPP8816G CO No. 72/MUM/2020 Arising Out of ITA No. 3117/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) & CO No. 46/MUM/2021 Arising Out of ITA No. 4038/MUM/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel DCIT…

M/S. Dwarka Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…ot be served with notice u/s 131 or they failed to appear before Assessing Officer the loans could not be treated as non-genuine and therefore upheld the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. v) CIT vs. Orissa Corpn (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 where the Court held 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 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…

ITO, WD.-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Rootstar Developers Pvt. Ltd, Kollkata

ITA 33/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward- M/s. Rootstar Developers 4(1), Kolkata Vs. Pvt. Ltd., 32, Ezra Street, Kolkata-700 001. (PAN: AAFCR5973H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT, DR Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date of Hearing : 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2023 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, Kolkata…

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. Inset Commercial & Trading Co. (P) Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 650/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68

…submitted that mere non-appearance of directors of subscriber companies 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…

DCIT, Cir. 13(1)., Kolkata vs. M/S Panchdeep Construction Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/KOL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ularly when for two of the lender companies (Konark Commercial Ltd. and Metro Commercial Company Ltd.) are listed on stock exchange. For this, 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 16 Panchdeep Construction Ltd., AY 2017-18 number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notic…

Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Ramoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward -3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Income Tax Officer, Ramoliya, 33-134, Miranagar Ward-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Society, Varachha Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Abipr 3365 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 68

…nd no investigation was carried out by Assessing Officer. The assessee discharged his onus in furnishing the required details in support of his submission, the assessee relied upon certain case law including in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd) confirmed in 256 ITR 360 (Guj). 8. On the disallowance of expenses, the assessee stated that assessee furnished the evidence of expense but Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenses instead of making a reasonable disallowance…

ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Kemex Engineering (P) Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 75/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4) M/s. Kemex Engineering (P) Kolkata. Vs. Ltd., 2, Clive Ghat Street, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700001. (PAN: AABCK6212A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Respondent by : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR Date of Hearing : 28.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01.02.2023 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, Kol…

Tyhe ITO-4(5), Indore vs. M/S. Urvashi World Wide P. Ltd., Indore

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

ITA 569/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri .P.D. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nuine. Just on the basis of conjecture, 6 surmises and guess work, huge addition were made by the A.O. Contrary to this initial onus casted upon the assessee was discharged. Reliance is placed on following judgments:- a) CIT Vs.Orissa Corpn. Pvt. Ltd [19861 159 ITR 78 (SC). b) CIT Vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com 159 (Gujrat HC) c) DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 2561TR 360 (Guirat HC) d) Abhik Jain Vs. ITO [2013 133 taxmann.com 577 (Delhi Trib) e) M/s. Life Care International vs. JCIT, Indore (2021) 42 ITJ 183 (Trib. Indore) B) Opening Balances: It may please be appreciated that loan was accepted from…

M/S Starland Vinimay Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ot be served with notice u/s 131 or they failed to appear before Assessing Officer the loans could not be treated as non-genuine and therefore upheld the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. v) CIT vs. Orissa Corpn (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 where the Court held 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 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch vs. Salya India Private Limited, Bharuch

In the result, the ground No

ITA 438/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.438/Srt/2018 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Salya India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Ayan Apartment, Limda Vs Bharuch, 1St Floor, Hari Falia, At & P.O Kamboli, Kunj, Income Tax Office, Bharuch Pan No. Aalcs 7799 C Above Bank Of Baroda Building, Station Road, Bharuch अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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

…. Pujara Vs ACIT (ITA No. 2034/Mum/2014 dated 09.05.2016, with corrigendum of even date),  Shapoorji Pallanji Vs CIT (44 ITR 891),  Sardari Lal & Co. PCIT (251 ITR 864 (Delhi FB),  DCIT Vs Phoenix Lamps (79 ITR 276 Delhi-Trib),  Orrisa Corporation Vs CIT (159 ITR 78-SC),  Daulatram Rawatmal (87 ITR 349-SC),  Rohini Builders Vs CIT (256 ITR 360 Guj),  Gaurav Triyung Singh Vs CIT (243 ITR 531- Bom),  PCIT Vs Ami Industries India Private Limited (424 ITR 219- Bom),  Sarogi Credit Corporation (103 ITR 334-Pat),  H Hastimal (49 ITR 273 Mad),  S C Ghosal ( 106 ITR 344 Cal),  Bedi & Co Private Limited (144 I…

Psd Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, 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 number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the…

ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Godwad Traders Pvt. Ltd, Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 589/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 131Section 144Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Godwad Traders Pvt. Ltd., 13(1), Kolkata 104/1, Ground Floor, Vs. Foreshore Road, Ramk- rishnapur- 711102, West Bengal. (PAN: AACCG5753H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.01.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the revenue is against the…

Manju Credit Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
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 number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ature made by Ld AO is not warranted. 9. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the relevant documents filed to prove the nature and source of the credit/loans and the remand report and considering the ratio laid in the decisions of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation P Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) , ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises Orient Trading Co Ltd v CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (1963), DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 , Pr CIT V M/s Chawla Interbuild Construction vs Pvt Ltd ITA 1103 of 2015 , Pr CIT Vs Hi-tech Residency 257 Taxman 335 (SC) and CIT Vs Haresh Mehta 251 Taxman 346(2017) passed an order dated 05…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ature made by Ld AO is not warranted. 9. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the relevant documents filed to prove the nature and source of the credit/loans and the remand report and considering the ratio laid in the decisions of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation P Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) , ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises Orient Trading Co Ltd v CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (1963), DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 , Pr CIT V M/s Chawla Interbuild Construction vs Pvt Ltd ITA 1103 of 2015 , Pr CIT Vs Hi-tech Residency 257 Taxman 335 (SC) and CIT Vs Haresh Mehta 251 Taxman 346(2017) passed an order dated 05…