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.

Thirubala Chemicals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 7130/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshist Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.7130/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 M/s. Thirubala Chemicals The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., C-501, NDM-2, [vs. Ward – 25 (2), Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. PAN AACCT0454E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Parikshist Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed ag…

Rahul Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-46, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 131Section 68

…1999] 237 ITR 570. We note that against the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the special leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 7 AY 2016-17 Rahul Agarwal 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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kns Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (M/S. Kms Realtors Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1286/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…ss activities carried by it so as to route the same to their own business to the content of the investor companies. Such a logic is untenable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation private limited (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that under the 1922 Act, where a large amount of cash was found credited on the very 1st day of the accounting year, and considering the extent of the business, it was not possible that the assessee and a profit of that amount in one-day, the amount could not be assessed the as the income of their on the 1st…

ACIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata vs. Shri Amarjit Banthia, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1712/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 133(6)

…Kol. Vs. Sh. Amarjit Banthia Page 3 confronted the assessee with such adverse material, and this alone renders the order of the Ld AO weak in law. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) for the proposition that if the issued summons u/s 133(6) it is his duty to bring the process to a logical conclusion and non-response by such assessee. The judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. 11. The additions in cases of Swito Finance and Estates Pvt Ltd., Castle commodities Pvt. Ltd. and Mahavir Finance Pvt. Ltd. h…

I.T.O. - 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Leena Haresh Harde, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6429/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(2)(5) V. Smt Leena Haresh Harde Room No. 506, C-10, 5Th Floor 502, 5Th Floor, Padmawati Palace Pratyakshakar Bhavan Nanda Patkar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaxph1737Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Michael Jerald

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 68

…er submitted that even otherwise, it is a settled position that mere non-compliance of notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act could not be viewed adversely against the assessee in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orrisa Corporation P. Ltd. [159 ITR 78]. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the entire assessment order has been framed based on the statement of Shri Gautam Jain who is neither a director nor a shareholder in the alleged creditor companies and therefore he has no locus standi to comment or to give any statement which could have any evidentiary value. Learned Counsel…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…• N.P. Garodia (order dated 13.01.2009 of Hon'ble P & H High Court in ITA no. 808 of 2008) • Brij Pal Sharma (order datedl7.02.2009 in ITA no. 685 of 2008 of Hon'ble P & H High Court) iv CIT vrs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC) and Anis Ahmed 297 ITR 441 (SC) that mere non-production of the lender /shareholder cannot be ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. v. Similarly as held in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) where a credit is shown to have come from a person other than the assessee, there is no further responsibility of the assessee to show that it has…

ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Nextgen Constructions P.Tld (Changed to M/S Aetius Construction P. Ltd Which Is Further Amalgamated With M/S Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 3593/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.Daniel-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-CIT- DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…. viii. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIT V/s. Daulat Ram Rawaltmull 87 ITR 349 (SC): It is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of the money of his creditors. ix. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd: 158 ITR 78 (SO: It is also possible that a creditor may have advanced funds from out of his exempted income. For eg. If the creditor has agricultural income which is exempt, then merely because the creditor is not assessed to tax, it does not follow that the credits are assessee's income." From the above factual and the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts, it is…

ACIT, Central Circle - 3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pkc Commodities (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2632/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2632/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cc-3(4), Kolkata Vs. M/S Pkc Commodities (P) Ltd. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Rd, Martin Burn House, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata- 700001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcr 5112 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…se inference against the appellant. In the first instance, the stand taken by the Ld. AO is found to be contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 13 M/s PKC Commodities (P) Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Ltd (159 ITR 78) wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows: "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…

The ACIT Ratlam, Ratlam vs. Ishri Deepak Kumar Soni, Ratlam

In the result, appeal of the revenue’s stands dismissed

ITA 270/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ineness of transactions with any creditors, (See page No.135 to 140 of the paper book). Appellant duly discharged his burden laid on him u/s 68 in line with judicial pronouncements in case of Supreme Court held in case of _ CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 Hon'bIe IT AT Indore bench in case of Shri Girish Kumar Sharda Vs. ACIT -1(1), Indore (order dtd 28.10.2013 ) and many others. (See page no. 204 to 227 of the paper book) In view of above order dtd. 02.11.2017 passed by the Hon·ble CIT(A) may be sustained. 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently Deepak Soni IT.A.No.270/Ind/…

M/S Satyam Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2445/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

…been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 19. 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…

Roop Kishore Madan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee partly allowed

ITA 663/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: And Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT.DR

Section 69C

…Delhi. section 133(6) and confirmed the transaction with the assessee. The documentary evidences have not been rebutted by the A.O. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Orissa Corporation Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., 397 ITR 106 (Del.). Learned Counsel for the Assessee with regard to addition of Rs.9,02,95,000/- regarding loans and advances reiterated that same were supported by income tax return, confirmations and bank statements and even source of the sou…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. M/S. Kejriwal Industries Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

…the following decisions to say that once the assessee files basic details' like, confirmation, ITR copy, bank account. etc, then the onus is discharged by appellant. Sr Case laws relied upon by Citation number No the appellant 1 Orissa Corporation P Ltd. 1986 159 ITR 789 (SC) (2008) 220 LTR 622 (Raj) 2 Aaravali Trading Co 3 Ranchhod J Nakhwa (2012) 21 taxmann. 159( Gui) 4 Rohini Builders (2003)_127Taxmann. 523 (Guj) 5 Hingora Industries Ltd. ITA N.2109/Ahd 2008 6 Apex Thearm Packaging P (2014)42Taxman.Com473(Guj) Ltd. 7 Dhrmdev Finance P Ltd. (2014) 43Taxmann. Com 395 (Guj) 12.2 On perusal of all above case laws,…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…ard the Department also has not brought any material to disprove the genuineness of the parties, capacity of the lenders and transactions on the basis of cogent facts on record. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (headnote) : 'Held, 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 assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue apart from issuing notices under Section 131 at the instance of the respondent, d…

D. J. Stock Broking Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 313/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

…bhai Nakhava, 208 TAXMAN 35. He also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 397 ITR 573 (Guj) as well as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa corporation Ltd., 159 ITR 78. He filed written submissions, and in his written submissions he further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P.Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bom), and Shri Shree Giriraj Ferromet P.Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No.3697/Mum/2017) dated 12.10.2018 (ITAT, Mum. ). He further submitted that recently, Hon’ble B…

Meenu Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 8333/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiita.No.8333/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Meenu Kapoor, 819 Katra Neel, The Acit, Circle-47(1), Chandni Chowk, Vs., Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi. Pan Aajpk6319D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.K. Singhal, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 Order Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. This Appeal By Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-16, New Delhi, Dated 03.09.2019, For The A.Y. 2016-2017, Challenging The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.10,20,45,840/- On Account Of Unexplained Loan Under Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.8333/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Meenu Kapoor, 819 Katra Neel, The ACIT, Circle-47(1), Chandni Chowk, vs., Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi. PAN AAJPK6319D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.K. Singhal, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, Date…

Autoage Automobiles Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2099/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

…e assesse as unexplained cash credit and the proceedings if any are already there on the person/company giving this amount to us. There are a number of cases in which higher courts have held in favour of the assessee In the case of CIIT Vs Orissa Corp. Ltd 159 ITR 78 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in the case assesse has given the name and address and PAN of the alleged creditors which was in the knowledge of the Revenue, the assesse cannot be held responsible as he cannot do anything more than this. Similar views has been expressed by higher courts in - CIT Vs Flex Plastic & Packaging Private limite…

Shri Farsuram Ratilal Bhamwala, Bharuch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1935/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr. D.R

Section 234BSection 274Section 41(1)

…nd additions cannot be made, merely rejecting the evidences filed and the evidences given by the assessee do not entitle the AO to make the addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78. More particularly in this case the assessee has discharged his onus by putting forth all the documents, evidence placed on record clearly shows that agreement to sell was entered into by the assessee with the above three persons who had substantial land and confirmed the payments made in the statement also in an affidavit, therefore, the creditwo…

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5133/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…e bankers. The Assessing Officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank reholders. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. (iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) 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 respond…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5820/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-13(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Surabhi Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Hariom Tulsiyan, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jakson Engineers Ltd., Noida

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6068/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain & Ms. Umang Uppal

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A

…ubmit reply to the AO it cannot be concluded that NJS was non-existent at the given address and that the purchases from them were bogus for which the Ld. AR has relied upon various judgments including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. 159 ITR 78 (SC). I am inclined to agree with the appellant’s AR on this account. 4.4.2 It is pertinent to know that the appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing Electrical DG Sets for which they are purchasing various raw material and spare parts from different persons. The appellant has purchased pump for C/N/K Series and B Series, EOT Crane,…