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.

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 78)

Smt. Seema Agrawal, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -I, Raigarh

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 179/RPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Rpr/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Seema Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Raigarh Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan No. : Affpa 4990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

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

Section 132Section 68

…e these evidences. Burden cast upon the assessee u/s 68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) (PN 109 to 112 of PR. relevant finding on PN 112. para 5). iii) DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), SLP dismissed vide 254 ITR (St.) 275 (PN 113 to 115 of PB). iv) Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs ACTT (2008) 1 12 ITD 307 (Ahd.) (PN 1 16 to 129 of PB, rele…

M/S Scc Investment, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - I, Raigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 178/RPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 68

…hese evidences. Burden cast upon the assessee u/s 68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - 4 i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) (PN 109 to 112 of PR. relevant finding on PN 112. para 5). iii) DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), SLP dismissed vide 254 ITR (St.) 275 (PN 113 to 115 of PB). iv) Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs ACTT (2008) 1 12 ITD 307 (Ahd.) (PN 1 16 to 129 of PB, rele…

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…el would not by itself establish that gift was genuine - Whether, therefore, finding of facts recorded by Tribunal could not be interfered with - Held, yes" d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the earlier decision in CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78, noted that where the conclusion of the Tribunal was not unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence, no question of law as such would arise for consideration. The Hon'ble Court further observed thus: "25. ...The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the…

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…el would not by itself establish that gift was genuine - Whether, therefore, finding of facts recorded by Tribunal could not be interfered with - Held, yes" d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the earlier decision in CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78, noted that where the conclusion of the Tribunal was not unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence, no question of law as such would arise for consideration. The Hon'ble Court further observed thus: "25. ...The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the…

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…el would not by itself establish that gift was genuine - Whether, therefore, finding of facts recorded by Tribunal could not be interfered with - Held, yes" d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the earlier decision in CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78, noted that where the conclusion of the Tribunal was not unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence, no question of law as such would arise for consideration. The Hon'ble Court further observed thus: "25. ...The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the…

Naresh T. Wadhwani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(4), Pune

ITA 792/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.792/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Naresh T Wadhwani, The Income Tax Officer, Office No.9, Umed Bhavan, Vs Ward-8(4), Pune. Canara Bank, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabpw 7203 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V.L.Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune’S Order Dated 27.03.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/Ito Wd.8(4)/10658/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…has been provided, it is for the Revenue to examine the source of income of the lenders to find out whether they are creditworthy. The same has not been done. Reliance is placed on the following decisions for the above proposition: CIT v Orissa Corpn (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). g) Mere return of summons issued to the lenders or their non- appearance before the AO/CIT(A) cannot lead to an adverse inference against the appellant. Reliance is placed on the following decisions for the above proposition. Anis Ahmad & Sons V CIT (SC) C.A. No. 582 of 2008 dt. 22.01.2008. h) The CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition mere…

DCIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Anuya Jayant Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit -26(1) V. Anuya Jayant Mhaiskar Room No. 623, 6Th Floor 410 Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Kautilya Bhavan Chandivali Village, Andheri (E) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400072 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ajdpm3145L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kothari Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(2)

…um credited in the books can be brought to tax when assesee has no explanation about nature and source or where such explanation is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Orissa Corporation Ltd 159 ITR 78, assesee has to prove identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction done failing which the credit would be brought to tax as deemed income of the concerned year. In the instant case, the appellant has owned up the credit and thus identity is established. Further, as can be seen from the assessment order the creditworthiness of the assessee…

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…on can be made u/s 68 of the Act. The AO has made additions on the ground that notices u/s. 133(6) were not replied by the lenders and the suppliers. The AR has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) has held that if the AO has issued summons or notices u/s. 133(6), it is his duty to bring the process to a logical conclusion and non-response by such person cannot be held against the assessee. The judgments are applicable to the present case. In the present case the appellant has obtained from these parties the supporting evidences and sub…

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…on can be made u/s 68 of the Act. The AO has made additions on the ground that notices u/s. 133(6) were not replied by the lenders and the suppliers. The AR has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) has held that if the AO has issued summons or notices u/s. 133(6), it is his duty to bring the process to a logical conclusion and non-response by such person cannot be held against the assessee. The judgments are applicable to the present case. In the present case the appellant has obtained from these parties the supporting evidences and sub…

Shri Kirodi Mal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 883/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Javed Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…entity and genuineness of transaction; so far as creditors' capacity to advance money to assessee was concerned, it was not a matter which would require assessee to establish, as that would amount to calling upon him to establish source of source - Held, yes 159 ITR 78 (SC) Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd When the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors, 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 inquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and the mere issue of notice u/s 131 is not sufficient. Th…

Narasimha Reddy Kotta, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 575/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Narasimha Reddy Kotta V Ito,Ward-8(2) Plot No.21 & 22 S. Hyderabad Flat No.302, 2Nd Floor Lahari Residency Shobana Colony West Maredpally Secunderabad-500 026

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR

Section 133(6)

…Thus assessee had discharged the onus , hence the order of ld.CIT(A) is required to be annulled and appeal of the assessee is to be allowed . The ld. AR, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78, Anis Ahmad & sons vs CIT 297 ITR 441(SC), Tek Ram vs CIT 357 ITR 133(SC),, DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360(Guj.HC), Addl.CIT vs. Bahri Brothers(P) Ltd. 154 ITR 244(Patna.HC), Khandelwal constructions vs. CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gauhati HC) and CIT vs. Text Hundred India(P) Ltd. (Del.HC) decisions in support of the case. 7. Further Ld.AR for the as…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 68

…y Vs. ITO - 220 CTR 622. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has also discussed the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. 333 ITR 100 (Bombay High Court) wherein it is held that assessee had given the details of addresses of the shareholder their PAN/GIR numbers and had also given the cheque no. name of the bankers and the assessing officer ought to have found out 3 Appeal…

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 56/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi &

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

…ny Vs. ITO - 220 CTR 622. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhatiin the case of Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has also discussed the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78. 5 Appeals DCIT, CC-8(1) Vs. Shri Surinder Anantram Sabhlok 10 The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. 333 ITR 100 (Bombay High Court) wherein it is held that assessee had given the details of addresses of the shareholder their PAN/GIR numbers and had also given the cheque no. name of the bank…

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(6), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Infrastructure, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1416/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Shree Infrastructure, Ward 3(3)(6), Vs 104, Sarthak Complex, Next To Ahmedabad Fun Republic Cinema, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan : Abtfs 9550 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr Dr Assessee By : Shri P.M. Patel, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.03.2016 Whereby He Deleted The Additions Of Rs.1,58,36,330/- & Rs.60,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Disallowance On Account Of Cash Payments Towards Land Development Agreement Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr DR

Section 143(2)

…when affidavit was not controverted, it has to be taken as accepted. The appellant has been able to discharge its onus [63 TTJ 191 (Del.)] - Instrumed (India) International Vs. ITO and successfully shifted the burden to prove on revenues as has been held in [159 ITR 78 (SC)] - Orissa Corporation. The stand of appellant has support from judgment in the case of ITO Vs. Shree Infrastructure AY : 2011-12 8 Bharat Bijli Ltd. reported at [71 ITD 412 (Mum.)]. I am inclined to accept the argument of appellant and rely on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders reported at [256 IT…

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere…

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere…

Uppal Shah Prop-J K Sugars, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1954/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Morey &

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…ere already repaid to the said parties placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn, (P.) Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC). It was further stated that all the loans were repaid in the subsequent period along with interest and even Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) was also made. However, the Assessing Officer had rejected the explanation by stating that the assessee had failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him to prove the identity, creditworthiness and gen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur vs. Uppal Jitendra Shah, Kolhapur

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1893/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Morey &

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…ere already repaid to the said parties placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn, (P.) Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC). It was further stated that all the loans were repaid in the subsequent period along with interest and even Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) was also made. However, the Assessing Officer had rejected the explanation by stating that the assessee had failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him to prove the identity, creditworthiness and gen…

M/S. Iryd Automatrix Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Iryd Automatrix Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Vs. No.13/1, 4Th Floor, Ward – 3(1)(4), Sukruthi Apartment, Bengaluru. Subbaramachetty Road, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aadci 9051 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Hemant Pai, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 144Section 68

…in question was not genuine or identity of creditor was not established or the creditworthiness of the creditor has not been established. The Hon’ble Court took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC). The learned DR, on the other hand, while relying on the order of the 7. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and therefore the addition has to be sustained. He also made a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kumar Nirman and Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT…

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ugned 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 (SC). 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 Supreme Co…

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

What is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Seema Agrawal, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -I, Raigarh

M/S Scc Investment, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - I, Raigarh

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

Naresh T. Wadhwani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(4), Pune

DCIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Anuya Jayant Mhaiskar, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

Shri Kirodi Mal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

Narasimha Reddy Kotta, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok, Mumbai

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(6), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Infrastructure, Ahmedabad

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

Uppal Shah Prop-J K Sugars, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur vs. Uppal Jitendra Shah, Kolhapur

M/S. Iryd Automatrix Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(4), Bangalore

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi