How many judgments cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.?

897 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 131, Section 148.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78Supreme Court of India1986#53 most cited

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

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

897

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orissa Corporation · 159 ITR 78 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · burden of proof · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · non-compliance of summons · share capital · Section 131 · Section 133(6) · adverse inference

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor share capital and share premium paper company share application money addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 genuineness of the transaction section 131 section 133(6)entry operator unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…t to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary rulling are as under: - • Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) • CIT v. Orissa corporation Pvt. Ltd., 158 ITR 78 (SC) • CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). • Jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai for an identical case i.e. Arceli Realty Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer 15(1) (1), Mumbai pronounced on 21.04.2017 ITA- 6492/Mum/2016-17, the summary of the case is outlined as under:- "........A.O. merely relied upon the information provided by the office…

Smt Kushalappa Savitri, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 154Section 68

…d their onus placed on them. The fact that credit entry shown in the name of a person other than the actual lender of the money would not by itself, be relevant where cogent evidence is independently available. In the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held that the assessee produced before the Assessing Officer letter of confirmation by creditors, discharged onus and particulars of the different creditors whose Income Tax files Nos were with the Department. The summons issued to the creditors by the Page 14 of 17 Assessing Officer u/s.131 at the addresses given by the asses…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1313/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…68 in respect of share subscriptions can be upheld. A reference was made to the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd [(2012) 210 Taxman 14], Suman Gupta Vs ITO [(2012) 25 txamnn.com 220 (Agra)], CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)], CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd [(1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], Nemi Chand Kothari Vs CIT [(2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau)], ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt Ltd [ (2002) 255 ITR 573 (Ker)]. A reference was then made to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pawankumar M Sanghvi Vs ITO [(2017) 81 taxmann.com 308 (Ahd)] and Collector of Customs Vs D Bhoorm…

Carlson Hospitality Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4192/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 68

…o the additional evidences of the two creditors, the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance filed by the assessee in support of his submission. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anees Ahmed and Sons Vs. CIT 297 ITR 441 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that all these six parties for which the Assessing Officer asked balance confirmation have provided services in the nature of Advertisement & Marketing to the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of the four parties for which confirmation was furnished by the assessee and treated rem…

Kirtiprada Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, FCAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR

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

…v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 13. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. 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 Assessi…

Income Tax Officer 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Satyamitra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Indore

In the result, the departmental appeal i

ITA 451/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…l Limited, 09 ITJ 481 [Indore]; CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment [P] Ltd, 45 DTR 281 [Delhi] CIT Vs Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 (MP) Ashok Pal Daga Vs CIT, 220 ITR 452 (MP) CIT Vs Barjatiya Children Trust 225 ITR 640 (MP) CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd, 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT V/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd, 333 ITR 100 (2011) (Bom), Sumer Chand Jain Vs CIT, 292 ITR 241 (MP) 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions referred by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. We find that the assessee filed PAN of the loan creditors, confirma…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ix). CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (x). CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilm Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Or…

Swarn Gems P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133(6)Section 68

…justify the point of the assessee. Hence, the assessee has established genuineness of all the transactions, identity of the creditors and the source of the fund received. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corpn. 103 ITR 344 (Patna) iv) Tola Ram Daga 59 ITR 632 (Asm) v) Suresh Kalmadi 32 TTJ 300 (Pune Tri.) vi) DCIT vs. Anand Prakash Goenka 52 ITD 73 (Cal) vii) ACIT vs. Mohanlal Mishrilal & Sons 52 TTJ 9 (Indore) viii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141 ix) CIT vs. P. K. Noorjaha…

M/S Rajdeep Marketing Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7969/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…d rejected the submissions of the assessee. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. He brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), and inviting our attention to Para–3 of the above order submitted that the facts are similar to the case of the assessee and that the conclusion in the above case is important. He submitted that in the given case, the Assessing Officer and ADIT (Inv.) did empty formalities merely to complete the assessment. Further he relied on the following…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad vs. Maithili Financials Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1656/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Maithili Financials Ward – 16(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccm 4074 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Maithili Financials Ward – 16(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCM 4074 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of hearing: 07/07/2021 Date of pronouncement: 26/07/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0136/16-17/ACIT, Cir.1…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 69A

…ddresses of the aforesaid persons were given but the A.O. had done nothing therefore the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Reliance was place on the following case laws : • CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) • Add. CIT Vs. Hanuman Aggarwal [ 1985] 151 ITR 150 (Patna) • DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) • M/s Suraj Stones Corporate Ltd. Vs. ITO, Bengaluru in ITA No. 52/Bang/2020 vide order dt. 18/02/2021 (ITAT Banglore) • Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 723 (Mum) • Shri Chunni Lal reported in 211 ITR 11 (Statue)…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…culture etc as he was 55 years old farmer. Interestingly the ld. AO himself recorded the statement of the person thus, duly discharged the initial burden lay upon it, to which extent only it was responsible, as held earlier in CIT vs. Orissa Credit Corp. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and recently referred in CIT vs P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 279 (SC). Thus identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the person stood established beyond doubt only due to the dissatisfaction of the AO it cannot be denied when they have not brought on record any material evidence. 12. Onus was to be discharged by the AO: On the other hand when t…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 756/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Tiwari – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra (Ld. CIT-DR)/

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

…clearly distinguishable from facts of the case and do not apply in the assessee’s case, ignoring the fact that the said decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar V/s CIT (2011 330 ITR 1 SC) and CIT V/s Orissa Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. (1986 159 ITR 78) have not been considered. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,20,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that M/s Bottomline Distributors Pvt. Ltd. had filed part details as called u/s 133(6) of the I.T.Act, 1961 to prove the creditworthiness of the transactions. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleti…

DCIT- 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Opera Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5606/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion." 6.11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the earlier decision in CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. 11986] 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…

M/S Swargamrut Dairy Prv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6839/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 11(2)(2) 113, 1St Chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 Pan: Aalcs3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department By : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Menon

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…on record to show that the loan amount credited in the Books of Accounts of the assessee is nothing but unaccounted money of the assessee. 9 M/s. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 has held as under: - "That in this case the respondent 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 assessee's. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notice under section 131 at the instance of the responden…

Asst CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Neminath Associates, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8043/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…h from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 78]. It is trite law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case law considered by the Revenue authorities were rendered under different set of facts which cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Accordingly the case…