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 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.

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21((3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1634/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…defence of his arguments that once the assessee has filed all the evidences such as confirmations , PAN, bank statements , ITRs and finanacial statements of the lenders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 T…

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18((1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1633/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…defence of his arguments that once the assessee has filed all the evidences such as confirmations , PAN, bank statements , ITRs and finanacial statements of the lenders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 T…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2273/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadct 6373 M ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2273/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aacch 3712 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies. In our considered opinion, for this reason alone, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC). We find that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Novo Promoters and Finelease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 (Del) vehemently relied upon by the ld. DR before us, is not applicable in the instant case, as in the facts before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the notices u/s 133(6) have not been duly complied with. Hence th…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt.Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2270/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadct 6373 M ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2273/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aacch 3712 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies. In our considered opinion, for this reason alone, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC). We find that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Novo Promoters and Finelease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 (Del) vehemently relied upon by the ld. DR before us, is not applicable in the instant case, as in the facts before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the notices u/s 133(6) have not been duly complied with. Hence th…

DCIT, Cir.-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1762/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…ments 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…

Adbhut Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2404/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…nal appearance of the directors of the purchaser companies. As there was no compliance this addition u/s 68 is made. In our view this is against the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation(P)Ltd (1986)159 ITR 78 (SC). We find that the share purchasers are all income tax assesses and they have filed return of income and the payments ITA No.2404/Kol/2017 Adbhut Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2012-13 3 were made through account payee cheques and the share purchasers have confirmed purchase of the shares. There is no evidence with the revenue that the sale in questi…

Stryton Exim India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “Friday”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 665/Del/2018 (In ITA No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. ITO, C/o. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAICS0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. ITO, C/o. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAICS0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rahul Khare, Adv Revenue by: Shri K Tewari, Sr. DR…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Advent Stock Management Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1647/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…quired by law, is given, an addition cannot be made solely on the ground that the directors failed to appear in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 SC and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136, have held that an addition cannot be made simply because a person has not appeared in compliance to notice u/s 131of the Act, when all the other requirements of the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, has been complied with. Simila…

Raj Kumar Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1323/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)

…vidence against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del.), decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, decision Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P). Ltd. 307 ITR 332 (Del.) and others. 7 5. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of the assessee and material on record admitted the additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the addition on merits. 6. It is noted by the AO that…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…6-07. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the above documents/replies were filed by the assessee before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) during various proceedings Manz Retail P. Ltd. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in CIT v. Orissa Corporation P Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd [2001] 251 ITR 263 (SC), CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Del-HC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Del-HC), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 100 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Green Infra Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 680 (Bom-…

ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1768/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1768/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahcs 9726 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.D. Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…panies, drawing an adverse inference against the assessee company to treat the receipt of share capital as bogus is unwarranted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation P Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) , wherein it was held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account, the credit appears) stands fully discharged, if the identity of the creditor is establishd and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assess…

C.K. Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2076/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2013-14 C.K. Plastics Pvt. Ltd......................................................................…………………………………….…..Appellant 3Rd Floor Suit No. 12 7, Pollock Street Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aadcc 3067 F] Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Kolkata......................................................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 4Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…verse inference can be taken, just because loan creditors have not appeared in response to summons or have not been produced before the assessee. We draw strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was 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 of th…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar CIT-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/s S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali CHS Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. PAN No. ADAPD8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar DCIT-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/s S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali CHS Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. PAN No. ADAPD8694G…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…any further enquiries at all nor did he issue summons to the loan creditors. Accordingly he submitted that the AO was not entitled to make addition u/s 68 of the Act under these facts as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (159 ITR 78)(SC). 15. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has repaid most of the loans and the same has been noted down by the Ld CIT(A) in paragraph 6.3.32 of his order. The Ld A.R further submitted the statements given by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain has been claimed to have been retracted. He submitted that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has rendered it…

G.M. Bijlani Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R.W. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…A ) could have traced the said party by mining their IT data base as the said party is assessee with the IT Department. The reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Private Limited reported in (1986)159 ITR 78(SC). It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that apart from issuing I.T.A. No.1624/Mum/2017 notice u/s 133(6) , no effort was made by Revenue to trace the said party despite having completed details on their recordsas even data mining from current data base with Revenue was not done to trace/locate the said party. It was submitted…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…a conclusion that the credits appearing in the books of the assessee are fake............” 13. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del) " CIT, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Sumati Dayal vs. CIT-Bangalore [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) " CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) " Jalan Timber vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) 23 Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. " Addl. CIT Bihar vs. Hanuman Prasad Aggarwal 151 ITR 151 (Pat) " CIT vs. Kannan Kunhi 87 ITR 395 " CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 "…

M/S. Aditya Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 232/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Aditya Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 7223 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ssessee does not entitle the ld AO to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act . Such outright rejection of the evidences by the ld AO is totally contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held that :- 10. The question was again considered by this Court in Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. CIT [1981] 41 ITR 135, when this Court reiterated that it was not in all cases that by mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee, the character of a particular receipt as income could be said to have been established ; but wher…

M/S. Superb Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 403/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms. Suchitra Kambleacit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 Central Circle-3 Lajwanti Garden New Delhi New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…wn and in that situation non compliance of summons cannot lead to burden being placed on the assessee to produce those person. On the non compliance of the summons taken ground to take adverse view, the assessee relied on judgment of Anis Ahmed & Sons vs. CIT 297 ITR 441 (SC). Further reliance were also placed on CIT vs. WinstralPetrochemicals Ltd. (supra). The assessee dealt with the objection of the Assessing Officer that assessee failed to produce the directors of the share applicant companies. Special reference was made by the Assessing Officer that in case of private limited companies the onus to produce the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superb Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 56/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms. Suchitra Kambleacit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 Central Circle-3 Lajwanti Garden New Delhi New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…wn and in that situation non compliance of summons cannot lead to burden being placed on the assessee to produce those person. On the non compliance of the summons taken ground to take adverse view, the assessee relied on judgment of Anis Ahmed & Sons vs. CIT 297 ITR 441 (SC). Further reliance were also placed on CIT vs. WinstralPetrochemicals Ltd. (supra). The assessee dealt with the objection of the Assessing Officer that assessee failed to produce the directors of the share applicant companies. Special reference was made by the Assessing Officer that in case of private limited companies the onus to produce the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superb Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 55/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms. Suchitra Kambleacit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 Central Circle-3 Lajwanti Garden New Delhi New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…wn and in that situation non compliance of summons cannot lead to burden being placed on the assessee to produce those person. On the non compliance of the summons taken ground to take adverse view, the assessee relied on judgment of Anis Ahmed & Sons vs. CIT 297 ITR 441 (SC). Further reliance were also placed on CIT vs. WinstralPetrochemicals Ltd. (supra). The assessee dealt with the objection of the Assessing Officer that assessee failed to produce the directors of the share applicant companies. Special reference was made by the Assessing Officer that in case of private limited companies the onus to produce the…