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 367,238 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.

A.C.I.T., Circle-26(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Debashis Roy, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 226/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income, Shri Debashis Roy Circle – 26(1), Kolkata Vill – Vijayganj Bazar Vs P.O. Bhangar 24, Paraganas (South) P.S. Kashipur Pin - 743502 Pan : Aoppr3859H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/R Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/11/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Is Against The Deletion Of An Addition Of Rs. 4,19,07,168/- By The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Added By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act To The Income Of The Assesse On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Received During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

…essation of liability to invoke the rigors of Section 41(1) of the Act. The ld. A/R relied on the decision of Hon’ble I.T.A. No. 226/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Debashis Roy 5 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) to defend his case. 9. Finally the ld. A/R submitted that since these liabilities were pertaining to earliers years and were accounted for as outstanding balances coming from earlier years , therefore the action of the Assessing Officer to treat them as unexplained cash credit is contrary to the provisions of the Act as has been held in Rita…

Doddaguli Kenche Gowda Raju vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1) (1)

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/1508/2022HC Karnataka04 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 115BSection 68

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1508 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: DODDAGULI KENCHE GOWDA RAJU S/O KENCHEGOWDA, AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.21/1, D.K.CHICKEN CENTRE, VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU-560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SERNIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARAVIND.V. CHAVAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1) (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. 2 . PRINCIPAL COMM…

D.K. Poultry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/1525/2022HC Karnataka04 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 115BSection 68

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1525 OF 2022 (T-RES) BETWEEN: D.K. POULTRY OLD NO. 4, BBMP NO. 48/1A/4 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN K.P.ROAD, VALLABHANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 062. REP BY ITS PARTNER SRI. DODDAGULI KENCHE GOWDA RAJU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SERNIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARAVIND.V. CHAVAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1) (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. 2 . P…

ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. Trinetra Merchants(P) Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 570/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.570/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata .......….…..…....................................................….. Appellant Vs. Trinetra Merchants (P) Ltd...............................................................…… …. Respondent 14A, Clive Row, 1St Floor, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabct7086M] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 03, 2022 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 13.07.2020 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 10.03.2015. 2. Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 343 Days. Condonation Application Has Been Filed By The Revenue. Perusal Of The Same Shows That The Delay Was On Account Of Covid-19 Restrictions. We, Therefore, In View Of The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 Of 2022 Find That The Limitation Period In Filing Appeal Between 15.03.2020 Till

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC); v) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited [ITA No.972 of 2009]; I.T.A No.570/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2012-13 Trinetra Merchants (P) Ltd. vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 127 Taxman 523; vii) CIT vs. Orissa Coprn (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions referred and relied by both the parties. The only issue in dispute is regarding the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash credit totalling to Rs.5,29,00,000/- received by the assessee which compris…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Vandana Ispat Limited, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…f the Hon’ble Apex Court and Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases, where in the issue under reference is duly interpreted. It would be relevant to produce the findings in the said decisions as under:- (i) CIT Vs, Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 has held as under :- 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 the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices un…

Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, Jashpur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 96/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito-2, Raigargh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, College Road, Dist : Jashpur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /10 /2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bilaspur, Dated 06.03.2018, On The Following Ground :- 1. Whether In The Facts & Circumstance & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On The Points Of The Law Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao By Ignoring The Facts As Brought On Record By The Ao That The Assessee Failed To Prove The Identity Of The Creditor, Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Of The Investor As Per The Parameters Of The Legal Provisions U/S 68 Of The Act? 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Decisions In The Following Lead Cases:- (I) Mcdowell & Company Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 22 Taxman 11 (Sc). (Ii) M/S Raj Mandir Estates Pvt Ltd Vs Pcit-Iii, Kolkata (Slp No. 22566-22567) Dated 09.01.2017. (Iii) Cit Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd., 208 Itr 465(Cal).

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.96/RPR/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) ITO-2, Raigargh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar jain, College Road, Dist : Jashpur PAN No. : AGEPJ 9793 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.B.Doshi, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronou…

M/S Silvex & Co., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.K. Meena (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ble/ verifiable by the AO, before proceeding to treat the alleged purchases as unverifiable and sustain such adhoc additions. The assessee derives support from the following judicial pronouncements to substantiate its submissions: CIT vs. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 (SC) Held, “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 section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue t…

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

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

The ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Hemantkumar Chhabildas Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1695/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1695/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 I.T.O, Hemantkumar Chhabildas Patel, Ward-2(2)(2), Vs. 78, Kalhar Exortica, Ahmedabad. Near Science City Road, Soal, Ahmedabad-380060. Pan: Aftpp3706J

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 48Section 68Section 69

…ments which established their credibility" There are other case laws supporting the case of the appellant as under: i) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) ii) CIT Vs Pragati Co-op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj) iii) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) iv) CIT vs SanjayK Thakkar Tax Appeal Nos.524 of 2004, 525 and 526 of 2004 and 579 to 583 of 2003 dated 12-9-2005 (Guj HC) v) ITO Vs Kailpar Credit & Mercantile Pvt Ltd. in ITA No.421/Aha/2008 (ITAT, Ahd.) I am not inclined to accept the findings of the A.O. Appellant can't be punished for default, if any, of related party as it has been held…

Kalpesh Ratilal Gardharia, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward- 2(3), Kolhapur

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1850/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 152Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…held that where the assessee had not maintained any books of accounts, invoking of section 68 by the AO on the basis of the bank pass book was invalid. The appellant also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 !TR 360 (Guj), the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Nemichand Kothadi Vs. CIT (2004) 136 taxman 213: (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Guh) in support of the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 by the AO could not be sustained. Some other cases hav…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Gadumaria, Raigarh

In the result appeal ITA No

ITA 94/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal & Shri N.C.Gupta, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 131(1)Section 68

…sregard to an AO's duties in the remand proceedings which the Revenue seeks to inflict upon the assessee in this case. No substantial question of law arises. This appeal is dismissed." Following case laws are also relied upon 1. Orissa Corporation (P) Limited 159 ITR 78 2. CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd 251 ITR 263 3. CITv.ARL Infratech Ltd, (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Raj.) 4. Guruprerna Enterprises v. ACIT ITAT No. 255, 256 & 257/Mum/ 2010 5. Pr. CIT v. Softline Creations P. Ltd. 387 ITR 636 (Del) 6. CIT v. Nipuan Auto P. Ltd. 227 Taxman 147 (Delhi)(Mag) 7. CIT v. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) 8. DCIT v. Rohini B…

Shri Shri Sudhir Kumar Jha, Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 90/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 69

…ineness of the transaction. There for it is prayed to delete the addition of made by AO and sustained by the Ld CIT(A). Ld AR of the assessee further submitted the following judgments in support of its contention:- i) CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT Vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) iii) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217, 223 & 224 (Raj,) 4 Claris Life sciences Ltd. Vs ACIT (2008) 298 ITR (AT) 403 (Ahd.) iv) 7. With regarding to assessee’s argument that in the present case no money was received by the assessee, only acceptance of credit entry through jou…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 161/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke ACIT, Central Circle- M/s Motisons Jewellers Ltd. 2, Jaipur Vs. 270 to 272 & 276, Johari Bazar, Jaipur-302003. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCM 1827 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 178/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2…

Shrabani Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…assessee will be deemed to have discharged his burden when all information was supplied to the Assessing Officer who had not pursued the matter. In this context, he cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT vs Orissa Corporation Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) and considering the same issues raised by the appellant assessee may be allowed. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the decision of AO as well as ld. CIT(A). 5. We after hearing the rival submission and the document demonstrate before us by the ld. AR and going through the balance sheet of the donor viz. Shri Malay Ghosh. We find that g…

Prakash Godhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 136/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…discharged by assessee. Burden shifted to the AO. Thereafter AO did not bring any of the other facts to the knowledge of assessee. Burden never shifted back to assessee. None of the legal & cogent evidences disproved. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT vs Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217, 223 & 224 (Raj.) When the assessee discharges initial burden u/s 68, the onus shifts to the AO. If AO assesses the said loan as income of the assessee from undisclosed source, he has to prove either by direct or indirect/circumstantial evidence that the money which the assessee 4 received from cr…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.111/SRT/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/s. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Re…

DCIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Alpeshkumar C.Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 41(1)Section 54F

…hich established their creditability". There are other case laws supporting the case of the appellant as under: i) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) ii) CIT Vs. Pragati Co-op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) iii) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Sanjay K. Thakkar Tax Appeal Nos.524 of 2004, 525 and 526 of 2004 and 579 to 583 of 2003 dated 12-9-2005 (Guj. HC) v} ITO Vs Kailpar Credit & Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.421/Ahd/2008 (ITAT, And.) I am not inclined to accept the findings of the A.O. Appellant can't be even punished for default, if any, of related party as it has…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…wari Metal P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 597/2012 judgement dated 21.1.2013 • Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-lll Versus Dataware Private Limited, I.T.A. No. 263 of 2011 Date: 21st September, 2011 • Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 • Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Tewari reported in 220 Taxman 141 (Allahabad) • Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 • Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court • CIT v Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd re…

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shri Dharmesh Padamshibhai Patel, Surat

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

ITA 18/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Srt/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dharmesh Padamshibhai Patel, 07, Green House, Kailash Nagar, Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. Sagrampura, Surat Aayakar Bhavan, Room No.507 5Th Floor, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpp 6255 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that assessee has heavily relied on the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Orisa Corpn. Pvt. Limited 159 ITR 78 and stated that it was the duty of assessing officer to verify the genuineness of transactions by enforcing the provisions of section 131 of the Act. We note that assessing officer conducted the field inquiry and issued notices under section 131 of the Act on the address provided by the assessee, however these notices were returned back, as the pa…

M/S Combined Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 548/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 548/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Combined Merchants Private Limited…………….Appellant [PAN: AAECC 0503 F] Vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata......................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, CA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Biswanath Das, Sr. D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 20th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : August 4th, 2022 ORDER Per Manis…