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)

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

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

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

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. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

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

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

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…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. S G S Fashion Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 729/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Sgs Fashion Private Limited 5Th Floor, Room No.5/12/2B, 49/1/1, Cotton Street, Barabazar, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, H.O. Kolkata-700007, Vs. Chowringhee Square, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancs2236G Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the truth. The learned CIT (A) also noted that the addition cannot be made solely on the ground that there was no compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. The learned CIT (A) relied on the decision of the CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Courtin case of Jawahar Lal Oswal reported at 382 ITR 453, (Punjab and Haryana)& CIT VS. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Delhi). 06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessee company is engaged in t…

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…whose details are furnished, then the addition cannot be made in the hands of the company. b. PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (412 ITR 161) (SC) – distinguished on facts as in the present case complete evidences were filed. c. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC) – once assessee furnishes basic evidences, onus shifts to department. I.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. 5.2 The ld. AR further submitted that in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No.84/Kol/2024, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata had allowed the appeal of the assessee on the similar fact…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1536/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…enuineness 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: M/s EvernewCommodeal Pvt. Ltd “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…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1535/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…enuineness 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: M/s EvernewCommodeal Pvt. Ltd “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…

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

…he parties. Once complete purchase records were provided, the onus stood discharged. The AO’s conclusion that non-furnishing of ITRs makes the purchases non-genuine is not supported by law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78 and other cases has held that when assessee gives complete details of creditors, the AO must verify the same using his statutory powers instead of drawing adverse inference. 52.2 Further, the assessee submitted that assessment cannot be based on suspicion or conjecture. The AO has disallowed purchases only because of doubts and assumptions. The H…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…icer once the assessee had furnished all the material which we have already referred to above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 91. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 has held that assessee discharged the burden which cast upon it once he has provided the, names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that they were Income Tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Department. The AO cannot make addition once the onus of the assessee has been discharged. IT…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…icer once the assessee had furnished all the material which we have already referred to above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 91. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 has held that assessee discharged the burden which cast upon it once he has provided the, names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that they were Income Tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Department. The AO cannot make addition once the onus of the assessee has been discharged. IT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Bharatiya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3850/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohit Bharatiya Deputy Commissioner of Income 1001/1101, Khushi Pride tax - 4(3)(1), Belmendo, Mumbai Vs. Opp Link Road Santacruz W, Vallabh Bhai Road, Mumbai - 400054. (PAN: ALCPK2213Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Mohit Bharatiya Income tax - 4(3)(1), 1001/1101, Khushi Pride Mumbai Belmendo, Vs. Opp Link Road Santacruz W, Vallabh Bhai Road, Mumbai - 400054. (PAN: ALCPK2213Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Prese…

Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir - 2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 409/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Alpa V. Makadiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the appellant having discharged the initial burden by furnishing PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and ITRs of the creditors. Ashish Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, [CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); CIT v. Kamdhenu Vyapar Co. Ltd. (2014) 52 taxmann.com 283 (Del)] 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had availed temporary business loans from friends and relatives through banking channels, duly confirmed and repaid, and the transactions were genuine and duly explained. [CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008)…

Sagarmal Khemraj Dagalia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(3)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4125/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

…sts) despite the appellant's reliance on audited accounts and bank statements. 3.2 The CIT(A) ignored the principle that the burden shifts to the Department once the appellant provides a plausible explanation (supported by CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC)). 4. On Comparative Analysis of Cash Deposits 4.1 The CIT(A) erroneously compared cash deposits during demonetization with preceding/post periods without considering:  Business exigencies (e.g., festive season sales in October- November 2016).  The appellant's reduced bullion trading in AY 2017-18, leading to higher cash holdings from silve…

M/S. Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3308/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal{ M/S Shring Construction Asst. Cit, Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2, D-245, Nehru Colony, Vs. Muzaffar Nagar. Haridwar Road, Dehradun. Pan:Aabcr4560L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv. Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

…as having any doubts about the creditworthiness or genuineness of the loan 3(taken from Shri Jain, he could have issued summons u/s 133(6) of the Act to Sh. S.C. Jain which has not been done. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Orrisa Corporation reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) held that if the assessee has provided complete details of the creditors, AO should have made enquiries by issuing summons u/s 133(6) of the Act. 7 IT No.3308/Del/2017 M/s Shring Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 18. Once the assessee provided complete details of lender along with his bank statements and confirmation, burden lied upon th…

M/S Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…sal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur present case. The ld. CIT (A) has also not distinguished the cases relied by the assessee as reproduced at Pg 8-11 of the order. The assessee further place reliance on the following decisions :- CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) The gist of the case is as under:- Income – Cash credit – Burden of proof – Assessee had given he 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 instan…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…ajwani Sial v. CIT (1956) 30 1TR 228 (Nag.). 5.2.3.7. It is further relevant to state that even on merits, the appellant had discharged the initial burden of proof cast upon it as held in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 1TR 344 (Pat.); (iii) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune); (iv) M/s. Odedara Construction 362 ITR 338 (Gujarat). Accordingly, I hereby conclude that no addition u/s 68 was warranted in respect of the share application money/share premium of Rs.1,20,00,000/- received by the appellant…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…ajwani Sial v. CIT (1956) 30 1TR 228 (Nag.). 5.2.3.7. It is further relevant to state that even on merits, the appellant had discharged the initial burden of proof cast upon it as held in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 1TR 344 (Pat.); (iii) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune); (iv) M/s. Odedara Construction 362 ITR 338 (Gujarat). Accordingly, I hereby conclude that no addition u/s 68 was warranted in respect of the share application money/share premium of Rs.1,20,00,000/- received by the appellant…

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…(2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). iv) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). v) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT dated 30th July, 2010 in Appeal No.21073 of 1999. vi) Decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Thane v. Shree Rajlakshmi Textile Park (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay). vii) Decision of Bombay High…

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2190/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). iv) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). v) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT dated 30th July, 2010 in No.21073 of 1999. vi) Decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Thane v. Shree Rajlakshmi Textile Park (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay). vii) Decision of Bombay High Cou…

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2105/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…(2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). iv) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). v) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Metal Electric Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT dated 30th July, 2010 in No.21073 of 1999. vi) Decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Thane v. Shree Rajlakshmi Textile Park (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay). vii) Decision of Bombay High Court…

Bharat Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(5), Chennai

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

ITA 784/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.784/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bharat Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 152, 10Th Street, Deber Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 4(5), Vyasarpadi 600 039,Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Bfhpb6487D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate Placed On Record Memo Of Additional Ground & Requested To Take Up The Said Additional Ground As Preliminary Issue. After Hearing Both The Parties, I Am Inclined To Treat The Additional Ground As Preliminary Issue.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69

…ssessee furnished every detail before the Assessing Officer and it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry in respect of the said parties. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and argued that the assessee discharged the burden that lay on him then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence with reference to non-compliance of alleged debtors on the summon under section 133(6) of the Act. 8. The ld. DR by referring to para 5.4 at page 12 of the impugned order and…

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.

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

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. S G S Fashion Private Limited, Kolkata

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Bharatiya, Mumbai

Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir - 2(1), RKT, Rajkot

Sagarmal Khemraj Dagalia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(3)(5), Mumbai

M/S. Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

M/S Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

Bharat Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(5), Chennai