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)

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata..……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………...………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S P Mukherjee Road, Kol-700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…filed by the assessee and merely harped on non- compliance of the summons issued under Section 131 of the Act, which is factually incorrect Learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) as well as the decision of this Court in Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs- CIT, (353) ITR 171 (Cal). The Tribunal also noted the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ITO Vs M/S Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ΠΑ/282/Kol/2012) wherein the factual position was also similar to that of the case of the assessee. 7 Raja Shelters Pvt. L…

Orange City Recreation Resort Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5698/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 5698/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) Orange City Recreation v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Resort Pvt. Ltd. बनाम 7(3)(1) 132, Blue Rose Industrial Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Premises, Near Metro Mall, Road, Mumbai – 400 020, Western Express Highway, Maharashtra Borivali (East) Mumbai – 400 066, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACO3066H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Respondent by : Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.11.2025…

Anirudh Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(7), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee has filed all the evidences qua the loan creditors before the authorities below. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 2. 6. In the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held a…

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…hich has duly explained by the assessee and the ld. AO in the assessment nowhere denied from these. The assessee 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 inCIT vs P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 279 (SC). Identity Established: It is further submitted that even assuming the ratio so laid down in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) is heldapplicable, i.e . what is required is only to establish that there existed a shareholder and the payment was really madeby it, which…

Aabid Ali Khan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1714/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2017-18 Aabid Ali Khan, Vs. Acit, 2016, First Floor, Cc-26, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 005. Pan: Agqpk0737J

For Appellant: Shri Sanjesh Jarwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69A

…cise his statutory powers u/s 131 to summon or examine the contributors, even though their names, details, and affidavits were on record. He contended that it is a settled law, as laid down in Commissioner Of Income Tax Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd. (159 ITR 78, SC), that once the Appellant provides prima facie evidence regarding the identity and source, the burden shifts to the Department to verify, 5 Likewise, the affidavits filed could not have been brushed aside without cross- examination, in view of the ratio in Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (30 ITR 181, SC). 3.2 Further, the addition of Rs.11,95,100…

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…genuineness of the lender (TIL). There was no requirement in law for the Assessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the sub-creditor, which is in this case was TCL.” b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC)’ held as follows: “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 under section 131 at the instance of the assessee,…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1661/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [ITAT/268/2024] vide order dated 17.12.2024. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat). The ld. CIT (A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) by relying on the above decision observing and holding as under:- “6.2.18. In view of the various judicial pronouncements cited by assessee together with various evidential documents submitted by the assessee, it can be inferred that since the assessee had taken loan in case of normal business and repaid the said loan throug…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [ITAT/268/2024] vide order dated 17.12.2024. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat). The ld. CIT (A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) by relying on the above decision observing and holding as under:- “6.2.18. In view of the various judicial pronouncements cited by assessee together with various evidential documents submitted by the assessee, it can be inferred that since the assessee had taken loan in case of normal business and repaid the said loan throug…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1659/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [ITAT/268/2024] vide order dated 17.12.2024. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat). The ld. CIT (A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) by relying on the above decision observing and holding as under:- “6.2.18. In view of the various judicial pronouncements cited by assessee together with various evidential documents submitted by the assessee, it can be inferred that since the assessee had taken loan in case of normal business and repaid the said loan throug…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1658/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [ITAT/268/2024] vide order dated 17.12.2024. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat). The ld. CIT (A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) by relying on the above decision observing and holding as under:- “6.2.18. In view of the various judicial pronouncements cited by assessee together with various evidential documents submitted by the assessee, it can be inferred that since the assessee had taken loan in case of normal business and repaid the said loan throug…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1657/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [ITAT/268/2024] vide order dated 17.12.2024. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat). The ld. CIT (A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) by relying on the above decision observing and holding as under:- “6.2.18. In view of the various judicial pronouncements cited by assessee together with various evidential documents submitted by the assessee, it can be inferred that since the assessee had taken loan in case of normal business and repaid the said loan throug…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1656/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

…Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [ITAT/268/2024] vide order dated 17.12.2024. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat). The ld. CIT (A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) by relying on the above decision observing and holding as under:- “6.2.18. In view of the various judicial pronouncements cited by assessee together with various evidential documents submitted by the assessee, it can be inferred that since the assessee had taken loan in case of normal business and repaid the said loan throug…

Adhira Vinicom Private Limited, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (10)1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Adhira Vincom Private Limited Ito, Ward (10)1, Kolkata 52/1, 2Nd Floor, Santan Mistry Chowringhee Square, Lane, Near Oriya Para Mandir, Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Howrah-711011, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca4935E Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d u/s. 131 of the Act. The Ld. AR stated that even the information sought by the AO in the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act were duly complied. In defense of his argument he relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); Assessment Year; 2012-13 (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 07. The Ld. D.R strongly controverted and opposed the argument…

ITO-28(1), Civic Center New Delhi vs. Arpitam Builders LLP, South Delhi

ITA 1368/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Ito, Vs Arpitam Builders Llp G-3, Ward 28(1), 2Nd Floor, Maharani E-2 Block, Bagh, East Of Kailash, Civic Center. Delhi-110065. New Delhi-110002 Pan: Abqfa2725F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Mayank Patwari & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocates Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…on 133(6) of the Act which he could have opted for and could have verified whatever is submitted before him. The AO did not do so. This shows clearly the biased mind of the AO. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 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 non-compliance of summons issued b…

Caravan Corporate Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Caravan Corporate Management Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(1), C/O Subash Agarwal & Kolkata Associates, Advocates Sidha Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc2572L Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…n sought by the AO in the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act were duly complied in two cases. In defense of his argument he relied on the following decisions: Caravan Corporate Management Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. 06. The Ld. D.R strongly controverted and opposed the arguments as put forth by the Ld.…

Rupesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 971/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 68

…see establishes the above three ingredients – ie. Identity, genuineness of transaction and the creditworthiness the Initial onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 stands discharged. Reliance can be placed on the following cases:- (i) CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Ltd 159 ITR 78 SC :- where it was held that once basic details are furnished no addition can be made merely on suspicion. (ii) CIT Vs Lovely Exports 216 ITR 195 SC: wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court held that if identity is proved, addition cannot be made in assessee’s hands. 6. It is further submitted that it is also a settled law that only on the credit in th…

DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai

In the result, the cross

ITA 989/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 68

…l settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court It is well settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court It is well settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] and [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] and reaffirmed in NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra) NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), that the burden of , that the burden of proof under Section 68 is an initial and substantive obligation cast proof under Section 68 is an initial and substantive obligation cast proof under Section 68 is an initial and substa…

Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross

ITA 1098/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 68

…l settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court It is well settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court It is well settled, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] and [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] and reaffirmed in NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra) NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), that the burden of , that the burden of proof under Section 68 is an initial and substantive obligation cast proof under Section 68 is an initial and substantive obligation cast proof under Section 68 is an initial and substa…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…R submitted even if there is a non-compliance u/s 133(6) of the Act/ 131 of the Act, which is not the case before the Tribunal no adverse inference can be drawn. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - “(i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020.” 010. The ld. AR also referred to the chart showing the full details as to investor demo…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…R submitted even if there is a non-compliance u/s 133(6) of the Act/ 131 of the Act, which is not the case before the Tribunal no adverse inference can be drawn. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - “(i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (iii) Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol); (iv) ITO Vs. M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and (v) Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020.” 010. The ld. AR also referred to the chart showing the full details as to investor demo…

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.

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

Orange City Recreation Resort Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-7(3)(1), Mumbai

Anirudh Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(7), Kolkata

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

Aabid Ali Khan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

Adhira Vinicom Private Limited, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (10)1, Kolkata

ITO-28(1), Civic Center New Delhi vs. Arpitam Builders LLP, South Delhi

Caravan Corporate Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

Rupesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai

Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata