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 367,154 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.

Triveni Realities, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3782/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2010-11 Triveni Realities Acit Cent. Cir 2, 001, Ground Floor, Now With Dcit 25(1) Vs. Balaji Business Park, Plot No.3 &5, Mumbai Survey No.785, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan Aafft1575N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit 25(1) Triveni Realities Mumbai Mumbai 400059 Vs. Pan Aafft1575N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 48(5)

…he purpose of construction of the building. 6. It was further contended by learned AR that the non-service of notice u/s. 133(6) could not be viewed adversely against the assessee in view of the decision in the case of CTT v. Orrisa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) and CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom.). The Assessing Officer had not provided the opportunity of cross examining Shn. Chandrakant Dherai, on whose statement reliance was placed. Further, the said party was a MVAT defaulter and accordingly to avoid the consequences of default may have given such a statement. R…

P. Divyasri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1095/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 131

…t put to the assessee but proceeded to doubt the identity of the person, which is not in accordance with law. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd (159 ITR 78) (SC) wherein the Court observed that when the assessee has given name and address of the creditors and their PAN details, it is the duty of the Revenue not only to issue notice u/s 131 of the Act but to pursue the matter further. In the aforecited case, the Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whe…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…scharged the onus which lay upon it under section 68 by establishing the identity and creditworthiness of each 38 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., shareholder and, therefore, no addition could be made under section 68. " viii. CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 /25 Taxman 80F (SC) : In this case assessee gave the names and addresses of the creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the creditors were income- tax assessees. The revenue apart from issuing notices under section 131 did not pursue the matter further. It did not examine the source of income of the alleged creditors to find out whe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…453 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del.) " Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Ors 299 ITR 268 (Del.) " CIT Vs Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 319 ITR (ST) 5 (SC) " CIT Vs Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del.) " Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment ltd. 194 Taxman 43 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) " CIT Vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Nem Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau) 11. It was further submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

M/S. Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5955/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O Gh – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aatpa 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

…ssee when the assessee has submitted sufficient evidences in respect of the credit appearing in its books of accounts. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 (SC). It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that this is a case of a normal scrutiny assessment and not a case of a reopening of assessment on the basis of any allegation of accommodation entry. 6. The Ld. AR contended that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by indulging into surmises and raising doubts without appreciating the evidences on r…

Triveni Homes, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3780/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Triveni Homes Vs. Acit Cc-2 001, Ground Floor Thane - 400604 Balaji Business Park Plot No. 3&5, Survey No.785 Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aafft1576R Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Triveni Homes Mumbai 001, Ground Floor Plot Number-3 & 5 Mittal Industrial Estate M.V.Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM M/s. Triveni Homes Vs. ACIT CC-2 001, Ground Floor Thane - 400604 Balaji Business Park Plot No. 3&5, Survey No.785 Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAFFT1576R Appellant) .. Respondent) DCIT 25(1) Vs. M/s. Triveni Homes Mumbai 001, Ground Floor Plot Number-3 & 5 Mittal Industrial Estate M.V.Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAFFT1576R Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue by Shri M.C.Omi Ningshen Date of Hearing 12/02/2018 Date of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E…

Jayesh Industrial Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1994/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM] I.T.A. No. 1994/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jayesh Industrial Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ..............................…………………………Appellant 258, Lake Town, Flat-S.J-2, Block-B, Kolkata – 700069 [PAN : AABCJ 9566 E] I.T.O. Ward 11(4)..………………………………………………………….......................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Suqare, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances by: Shri I, Banerjee, FCA, appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Amitave Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 1…

Yash Developers, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

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

ITA 833/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Yash Developers Dcit Circle 3, Room No. 2, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Room No. 4, Aaji Krupa Building, Hari Niwas Circle, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Naupada, Thane (W), Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W), Thane – 400 602. Thane-400604. Pan: Aaafy4509J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (DR)

Section 133ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee -from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that M /s . Y as h D e v e l o p e r s 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…

ACIT, Madurai vs. V.Rajan, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1234/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr.Philip George, Adv

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या%यक सद"य के सम& BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1234/Mds/2017 %नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Shri V.Rajan, Tax, 31, Kasturibai Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-3, Madurai. Madurai-625 106. [PAN: AHJPR 9558 A] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) : Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT Department by : Assessee by Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क6 तार"ख/Date of Hearin…

Mr. Ashish Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the Assessee’s ground No

ITA 1931/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Mr. Ashish Jhunjhunwala, V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 10/4, Aliore Park Place, Xxviii, Kolkata Kolkata-700 027 [Pan No.Acppj 2618 E] अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" की ओर से/By Assessee Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25-01-2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini:- This Caption Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining The Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-Ii, Kolkata, Dated 28.08.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Vide His Order Dated 22.11.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced Hereunder:- “1.The Orders Passed By The Lower Authorities Are Arbitrary, Erroneous, Without Proper Reasons, Invalid & Bad In Law, To The Extent To Which They Are Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…us now has shifted on the Department to enforce the creditor by exercising powers u/s.131 of the Act. 6.1 In addition to this, Ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein it was held that the assessee had given the ITA No.1931/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 Mr. A. Jhunjhunwala Vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, Kol. Page 9 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 number was in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart…

DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Crown Consultants (P) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 717/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40Section 68

…AO to treat said transactions as unexplained cash credits which comes within the ambit of section 68 of the Act. In this regard relied upon plethora of judgments including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). The case laws relied upon the assessee are reproduced below: 1. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. CIT vs. M/s Mark Hospital (P) Ltd. In ITA Appeal No. 968 of 2014 3. CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd. (2014) 40 CCH 0272 (Ahd Trib) 4. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) 5. CIT vs. Shamilar Buildwell Pvt.…

Bala Reddy Gopu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 455/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 14ASection 17(1)(iv)Section 192Section 194HSection 44A

…7 Bala Reddy G assessee has brought on record the required proof of identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. With regard to genuineness, all the transactions were routed through the bank. It was held in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC), as under: 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, did no…

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3067/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ITA Nos.3066 & 3067/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 1 of 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Savitaben Mangaldas Trust, vs. Income Tax Officer, Amola Chambers, Ward – 10(4), Ahmedabad. Nr. Navrangpura Telephone Exchange, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN – AABTS 1322 E] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Surendra Mangaldas Shah (HUF), vs. Income Tax Officer, G-7, Amola Chambers, Ward – 10(4), Ahmedabad. Nr. Navrangpura Telephone Exchange, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN – AAC…

Savitaben Mangaldas Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3066/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

M/S Cbr Constructions, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1575/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 234B

…ion of the AO. n) The appellant relies on below decisions to buttress the facts of the case wherein it has been held that "Liability of appellant is fulfilled once the confirmation and PAN are submitted and verified by AO" 1. CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. CIT Vs Rohini Builders 254 ITR (St) 275 o) The appellant submits that "Mere non-attendance of creditor to summons issued does not make a ground for addition to assesses income." Further "In case of person who are contractors or with whom regular business transactions are made, the transactions with the creditors should not be added to the…

Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, UP-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICS7889N Assessee by : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.12.2012 of ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in thi…

M/S. Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2215/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Cc-3(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacck 5813 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 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…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…assessee and fully explained the sources of loan given, thus having sufficient earning and funds. 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) held that Income—Cash credit—Burden of proof—Assessee had given the names and addresses of the creditors—It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees—Their index number was in the file of the Revenue—Revenue, apart from issuing notices under s. 131 at the instance of the 24 Shri Radhey Ram Godara v…

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpac Filters & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 and appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 6049/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit – 9(1)(1), M/S Airpac Filters & Systems - Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The DCIT – 9(1)(1), M/s Airpac Filters & Systems - Room No. 260A, 2nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093 PAN: AAACA5728J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Airpac Filters & Systems - The DCIT – 9(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 260A, 2nd Floor, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 40, Suren Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (East), Mu…