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 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.

Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhiwadi vs. Shri Satish Kumar, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 637/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80C

…genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the creditor, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition as per the finding given in Para 6.5 of the order, pages 7-9. He relied on the following case laws: 1. CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) (HC) 3. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC) 4. CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) (HC) 5. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) 6. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) (…

M/S. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

ITA 2159/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwanikumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt.Shafali Swaroop, CIT-DR &
Section 153CSection 234ASection 68

…of the transaction. Therefore, no addition can be made. The department cannot ask assessee to prove source of the source. The assessee-company relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), decision of Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nemi Chand Kothari (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd., 14 ITA.No.2159/Del./2014 M/s. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New De…

M/S. Behl Promoters & Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3407/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2009-10 Behl Promoters & Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 21, B-29, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Danday, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…hat the assessee has not established the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of transactions and their creditworthiness. 17. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee has given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors and it was in the 11 knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees and their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue and the Revenue, apart from issuing not…

Devendra Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 436/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, JCIT- DR
Section 69

…given by the appellant. Thus, during appeal proceedings satisfactory explanation with respect to bank withdrawals of Rs. 12,50,000/- has not been furnished by the appellant. The appellant has relied on the judgement in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) to support his case. However, the facts of the appellant’s case are different from the case law cited in so far as in the case law cited - (a) names & addresses of the alleged creditors had been submitted. In the appellant’s case, names & addresses were not submitted during assessment proceedings and the additional evidences submitted during…

Yash Developers, Thane vs. DCIT Cir-3, Thane

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

ITA 3767/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…lders (256 ITR 360); the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (159 ITR 78). 7. On the other hand learned Departmental Representative has refuted the said contentions and argued that the companies from whom the assessee took loans were jamakharchi/paper companies only and were providing accommodation entries and therefore unsecured loans were not properly explained and hence the same was justifiably added to the income…

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rizvi Land Developments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5840/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147

…e Ld. counsel further submitted that the assessee has also filed cross objection challenging the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act. . Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and CIT Vs. U M Shah 90 ITR 396 (Bomb.) and Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in Jagdamba Trading Company Vs. ITO (2007) 16 SOT 66 Jodhpur, the assessee submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, if sales bills are accepted then the to…

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Harsh Dalmia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7459/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…, PAN, ROC certificate, it had discharged the onus which lay upon it under section 68 by establishing the identity and creditworthiness of each shareholder and, therefore, no addition could be made under section 68. viii. CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 125 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 whet…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 663/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…ors P. Ltd. Under such circumstances, addition of Rs.2,39,00,000/- as unaccounted income of the appellant cannot be sustained. I find support to my point of view from the following judicial decisions;- i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Sahibganaja Electric Cables (P) Ltd. reported in 115 ITR 408 (Cal) iii) CIT vs. Shree Gopal & Co. reported in 204 ITR 285 (Guj) iv) CIT vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 394 (Bom) v) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 354 ITR 282 (Del) vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) vii) Nemi Ch…

Satluj Shiksha Samiti, Haryana vs. ACIT, Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 777/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. V.M. Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…firmed about the transaction and their statement on oath uls 131 were recorded by the AO (PB Pg 109-131). 4. AO was not justified in calling upon the assessee to prove the source of source case laws relied upon are as under :- . • Orissa Corporation (P)ltd 159 ITR 78(SC) • P.K. Noorjahan 273 ITR 570(SC) • Nabadwip Chandra Roy v/s CIT (1962) 44 ITR 591 (Assam). • Tolaram Daga v/s CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam). • Anand Prakash Agarwal vIs ACIT ( 2008) 6 DTR (All) (Trib) 191. • Radheshyam vIs Safiyabai Ibrahim AIR 1988 Born 361 • Rohini Builders 182 CTR 373 (Guj) 5. The list of 177 persons PB Pg 88-94/1…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2861/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2, Meerut B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Circle-2, Meerut Pioneer Partapur, Meerut Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Pan:Aabcp3296R B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri HC Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133Section 143Section 271Section 68

…r pursuant to the notice or even has stopped business, the claim of the assessee on that account could not be discarded as non- existent. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Orissa Corporation private limited 159 ITR 78, wherein it has been held that after giving names and address of the creditors, it was within the knowledge of the revenue about the creditors that they were income tax assessee and their index numbers are on the file, the burden laid on the assessee to prove the credits is discharged. He referred that when the suppliers are having the VAT number…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/55/2017HC Delhi25 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 68

…s that findings of fact ought not to be interfered with at this stage and the question whether the credits were properly explained or not being questions of fact, the same cannot be reappreciated by this Court. He relies upon CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Corporation 159 ITR 78 and CIT Vs. Gun Nidhi Dalmia 168 ITR 282. 23. Mr. Aggarwal vehemently urges that even where a question of law has been formulated, under Section 260A, the Court can still hold that no question of law arises as held in CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [2013] 356 ITR 65. Lastly, Mr. Aggarwal submits that the Appeal has no basis in as much as not…

The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Hotel Sea View Pvt. Ltd., Nani Daman

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 1615/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…osits. Hence, no addition is called for u/s.68. Reliance is placed on: " DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) " Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Pragati Co. op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ACIT vs. Hotel Sea view Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2007-08 In our considered opinion, in light of the above, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition. 4.4 So far deleting addition of Rs.1,05,84,968/- made on account of cash deposits are concerned and same is mention in AO at Page No.6 & 7, Para 9 & 9.1 and learned CIT dealt the matter at P…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Anand Tissues Ltd., Meerut

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3897/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 3897/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10. Asstt. Commissioner M/S. Anand Tissues Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs. 16 Km., Meerut Mawana Road, Circle : 1, Meerut. Vill. Fitkari, Meerut. M E E R U T. Pan : Aabca 1790 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, F.C.A.; &For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 41

…nnot be doubted. No such material has been brought on record, either during the assessment or during the remand proceedings. In this context, reference is made to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (159 ITR 78). In this case, it has been held that where an assessee had furnished names and addresses of the creditors and it was also in the knowledge of the Department that such creditors were income tax assessees, the onus lies on the revenue to find out the creditworthiness of such creditors. The assessee would be treated as having discharged the burden a…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…y and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 19 Gialso devi " Vishnu Jaiswal Vs CIT (2012) 137 ITD 259 (Lucknow TB TM) " Saroj Devi Vs ITO (2012) 33 CCH 75 (Del. TB) 13. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the order of the AO and reiterated the observations made in the assessment order. 14. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Greenland Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1528/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 1528/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2003-04. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Greenland Finance & Ward : 12 (2), Vs. Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 306, Sharp Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. Pan : Aaacg 3755 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. D. R
Section 68

…t and cannot be added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The facts of the cases cited by the appellant are identical with that of the instant case. Further, the reliance is also placed on following decisions of Apex Court :- 1 CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 9SC); 2 Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268. 9.5 The appellant in its submission has also relied upon the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Export 299 ITR 268 (SC) which has confirmed the order of the Delhi High Court. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that once the identify of the share holders have been e…

ITO 25(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vikram Muktilal Vora, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito 25(3)(5), Vs. M/S. Vikram Muktilal Vora, Mumbai – 400 051 702/703, Kshem Kalyan Building, Sanyas Ahram, B.S.Road, Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aaapv4747P Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 131Section 144Section 148Section 68

…the Gauhati High Court in the case of cn v Srlt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau) at page 482.(Copy enclosed) The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Appex Court in the use of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (Se). In tl-e case of CIT v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P & H) the court held that "where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party's account were in fact received from the third party and are genuine, he discharges the onus. In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee's income in the absence of any…

Sanjay Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6097/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sanjay Singh, Vs DCIT, L.M. Agarwal & Co., CA, Circle-2, KA-32, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AONPS6917B Assessee by : Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 01.09.2016 of ld. CIT (A), Ghaziabad. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That the learned C…

Sunstar Exposition Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4896/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)

…enses, sent the notice ITA No. 4896/Del./2012 6 u/s 133(6), which got duly served. Just because the reply was not received, the AO made the disallowance. The addition so made is not sustainable in view of the judgment of CIT VS. Orrissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78. However, during the penalty proceedings, in its letter dated 30.11.2010 (PB Pg. 16), made a submission before the AO that the bill so raised by the said person was duly paid during the next financial year. Evidences are at paper book Pages 35-36. In view of the above facts, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied. The assessee has made complete di…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…arly filing their returns. The Assessing Officer without discharging his onus or bringing any material to the contrary, just rejected the evidences filed by the assessee. 21. We noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orisssa Corporation, 159 ITR 78(SC) has categorically held that for inaction of the Assessing Officer, the assessee cannot be penalized. We noted that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically took a view that the case of the assessee is duly covered by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.212/2012, dated 1…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Aruna Hotels Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3108/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…he claim. In the instant case the primary onus remains discharged by the appellant and hence the ratio in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 would apply. Similarly, the ratio in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) would apply. In that case it was held by the Apex Court that once the credit was owned up the same could not be brought to tax in the hands of the company and the Revenue was free to proceed to examine the creditworthiness or otherwise of the person owning up the credit. The appellant ha also relied upon the ratio in the case of Lovely Export…