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 367,194 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.

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 67/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…us judicial rulings. 11 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 9. Our above submissions gets support from following Judicial Decisions. RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS: 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) held that the assessee is required to prove (i) identity of the lender/party, (i) the genuineness of the transactions and (in) the credit worthiness of the lender/party. It is the case of the assessee that where the identity of the parties and their capacity is established, the initial burden which lies upon the Assessee can be said to have been…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 66/MUM/2022[2013-14`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…us judicial rulings. 11 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 9. Our above submissions gets support from following Judicial Decisions. RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS: 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) held that the assessee is required to prove (i) identity of the lender/party, (i) the genuineness of the transactions and (in) the credit worthiness of the lender/party. It is the case of the assessee that where the identity of the parties and their capacity is established, the initial burden which lies upon the Assessee can be said to have been…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 65/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…us judicial rulings. 11 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 9. Our above submissions gets support from following Judicial Decisions. RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS: 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) held that the assessee is required to prove (i) identity of the lender/party, (i) the genuineness of the transactions and (in) the credit worthiness of the lender/party. It is the case of the assessee that where the identity of the parties and their capacity is established, the initial burden which lies upon the Assessee can be said to have been…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 64/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…us judicial rulings. 11 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 9. Our above submissions gets support from following Judicial Decisions. RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS: 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) held that the assessee is required to prove (i) identity of the lender/party, (i) the genuineness of the transactions and (in) the credit worthiness of the lender/party. It is the case of the assessee that where the identity of the parties and their capacity is established, the initial burden which lies upon the Assessee can be said to have been…

The the Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S M/S Hanumant Ingots Pvt Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 335/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 335/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. A-4, 1St Floor, Radha Mohan Complex, Bhaisthan, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacch4665D ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 335/RPR/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. A-4, 1st Floor, Radha Mohan Complex, Bhaisthan, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AACCH4665D ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hea…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Shangrila Impex, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)

…nuineness & identity of the party then addition cannot be made under section 68. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions of various judicial authorities: a. In the case of Commissioner vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where in the case the assessee has given the names and address of the alleged creditors and it was in knowledge ©f the Revenue that they are Income tax assessees and GIR No. were also given if the Revenue did not examine the 25 M/s Shangrila Impex source of income of alleged creditors, the assessee cou…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 145Section 148

…I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 1 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 Jt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Afsand Akhtar, Special Range, Plot No. 2, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823r (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.3, 4, 17 & 5/Lkw/2019 (in ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018) Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 M/s Afsand Akhtar, Vs. Jt. C.I.T., Plot No. 2, Sche…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 145Section 148

…I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 1 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 Jt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Afsand Akhtar, Special Range, Plot No. 2, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823r (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.3, 4, 17 & 5/Lkw/2019 (in ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018) Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 M/s Afsand Akhtar, Vs. Jt. C.I.T., Plot No. 2, Sche…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 145Section 148

…I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 1 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 Jt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Afsand Akhtar, Special Range, Plot No. 2, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823r (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.3, 4, 17 & 5/Lkw/2019 (in ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018) Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 M/s Afsand Akhtar, Vs. Jt. C.I.T., Plot No. 2, Sche…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 145Section 148

…I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 1 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 Jt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Afsand Akhtar, Special Range, Plot No. 2, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823r (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.3, 4, 17 & 5/Lkw/2019 (in ITA Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018) Assessment Years:2013-14 to 16-17 M/s Afsand Akhtar, Vs. Jt. C.I.T., Plot No. 2, Sche…

Shri Shri Niteshkumar Goyal, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 36/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Nitesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Com Con India Net Work Solution Shop No.327 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aigpg6386B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pandse, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pandse, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 68

…appellant relied upon the following decisions of the hon'ble Courts: i. CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) ii. Nemichand Kothari Vs CIT and another 264 1TR 254 (Gauhati). iii. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). 2.2 I have gone through the grounds of appeal, gone through the submission of the appellant and read the findings of the AO in the order. During the assessment proceedings, the AO required the appellant to 8 Shri Niteshkumar Goyal Vs. ITO furnish necessary documentary evidences in respect of the loans taken from the persons. From the given P…

ITO, Ward 3(2) (7), Ahmedabad vs. M/S G.D. Infrastructure, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1792/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) 4, Narnarayan Estate Vs Ahmedabad. Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ahmedabad. Vs 4, Narnarayan Estate Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dipak R. Shah Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 22.5.2017 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Wd.3(2)/195/15-16 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.1772 & 1792/Ahd/2017

For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

…old, and few parties have shifted their premises to some other areas, and whereabouts of the parties are not known to the assessee. In this context, the assessee has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anis Ahmad & Sons Vs. CIT, 297 ITR 441 (SC). The assessee has also relied upon Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Vardhman Exports, in Tax Appeal No.265 of 2008 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that source of the fund was duly explained since payment was made through banking channel, thus provisions of section 69C would not be applicable in such cases. Further,…

M/S G.D. Infrastructure, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(2) (7), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1772/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) 4, Narnarayan Estate Vs Ahmedabad. Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ahmedabad. Vs 4, Narnarayan Estate Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dipak R. Shah Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 22.5.2017 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Wd.3(2)/195/15-16 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.1772 & 1792/Ahd/2017

For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

…old, and few parties have shifted their premises to some other areas, and whereabouts of the parties are not known to the assessee. In this context, the assessee has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anis Ahmad & Sons Vs. CIT, 297 ITR 441 (SC). The assessee has also relied upon Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Vardhman Exports, in Tax Appeal No.265 of 2008 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that source of the fund was duly explained since payment was made through banking channel, thus provisions of section 69C would not be applicable in such cases. Further,…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ame period, there were similar price / quote patterns of various others reputed companies, which have been accepted as genuine and proper. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd., [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] (ii). CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmul [(1973) 87 ITR 349 SC). 7. SECTION 68 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT Section 68 has absolutely no application to the facts of the Appellant’s case. The source of the credit entries was clearly established, being from recognised stock brokers, who had made payment in terms of the stock exchange…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…uments sought from the applicants to examine the transaction were not available before the AO. As the regards the issue of non-appearance of the share applicants, we note that in such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523, has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessin…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Aarti Catalyst Solution Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1195/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…that the receipt was in the name of Biswanath. A simple way of discharging the onus and resolving the controversy was to trace the source and origin of the amount and find out its ultimate destination." B. CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 Taxman 80F/159 ITR 78(SC): "To what extent the assessee has an obligation to discharge the burden of proving that these were genuine incomes has been considered by this court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). This court was concerned there with the encashment of high denomination notes. In that case, some unexplained high denomination notes…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9158/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…s not justified. Referring to following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, t…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…s not justified. Referring to following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, t…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9156/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…s not justified. Referring to following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, t…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9155/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…s not justified. Referring to following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the AO and the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. i. CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) ii. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) iii. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd Tb) iv. CIT Vs Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P&H) 47. He further submitted that the assessee has repaid the loan after 31st March, 2014 and the AO is relying on the order of AY 2013-14 in the case of the loan creditor which is much earlier than the date of repayment. Therefore, t…