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 366,470 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.

M/S. Manak Devi Surana, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 787/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-787/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…efore the detection by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 5. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case is relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. 159 ITR 78(Hon'ble Supreme Court) and thereby derived wrong conclusion of upholding the unwarranted penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act of Rs.4, 27,579/-. In view of above, the appellant party that the aforesaid impugned penalty of Rs.4, 27,579/- may kindly be deleted after providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. Ground No.5 is not as per…

Savita Ladha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. WD-36(3)/Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1780/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit Murarka, Advocate & Shri K.K.Chandak,ACAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…ts for the proposition that though the assessee had filed confirmation, income tax particulars of the creditors then it is for the AO to issue summons to those creditors and examine them with regard to the source of funds. a) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P.Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) b) Nathu Ram Premchand vs CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) c) Sri Pritam Daftary vs CIT 283 ITR 259 (Cal) d) CIT vs M/s. Dataware Private Limited in GA No.2856 of 2011 Judgment dated 21.09.2011 – Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 10. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 11. We have considered the rival submissions. The law is well settled that when the…

Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4128/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2003-04 Kusum Lata Thakral, Vs. Ito, H.No. 126-R, Ward-3, Model Town, Panipat Panipat (Hr.) (Pan: Ablpt6458R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ved Jain, Ca Department By: Ms. Richa Rastogi, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing : 15 .10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 :01.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned Sustaining Of Penalty Of Rs.3,15,000

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Rastogi, Senior DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ritten submissions to the Learned CIT(Appeals), order of the ITAT in quantum and copy of Punjab National Bank’s A/c. No. 01207126 of the assessee showing gift credited. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. – 159 ITR 78 (S.C); ii) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mal – 53 ITR 574 (S.C); iii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goyal – 224 ITR 180 (P&H); 3. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand tried to justify the orders of the authorities below with the submissions that in the claimed gifts elements of love and affection are missing. The facts and circumstances of the case sugges…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S D.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…produce them and requests the AO to issue summons u/s 131 for their attendance, it is the duty of the AO to issue such summons, failing which the addition would get deleted. It is also held in CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC) and Anis Ahmed 297 ITR 441 (SC) that mere non-production of the lender/shareholder cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68. 4.3.6. Similarly as held in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) where a credit is shown to have come from a person other than the assessee, there is no further responsibility of the assessee to show that it has come fr…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ime International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1873/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…lant, who has no authority or legal power to compel the said parties, can enforce their attendance before the Assessing Officer. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., 159 ITR 78, wherein it has been held that in case the creditor does not appear in response to summon issued under Section 131, no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of the appellant. It is observed that subscription of share application' money was received from above mentioned companies by the appellant, through a/c payee cheques and the said compan…

ACIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Envision Investment and Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 8041/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainअपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /8041/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Bhavan,386/370, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020. Street, Masjid (W),Mumbai-9. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /7896/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण आयकर अपील वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manjunath R. Swamy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement: 01.01. 2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 12.09.2011 Of The Cit(A)-19,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For Above Mentioned Assessment Year (Ay.).

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…was not warranted, that the assessee itself had offered disallowance of Rs.78.14 lacs, that the AO had made a disallowance of Rs.7.83 crores. He referred to the page No.23,25, and 29 of the paper book and relied upon the cases of Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78), K. Raheja Corpn. P.Ltd. (Income tax Appeal No.1260 of 2009-Hon’ble Bombay High Court), Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.117 of 2015- Hon’ble Delhi High Court) and Justice S.P. Bahrucha (53 SOT 39). He further stated that while giving appeal effect to the order of the FAA the AO had upheld the disallowance of Rs.78.50 lacs only.The DR supporte…

Envision Investment Consultants P. Ltd( Formerly Called Envison Investment and Fiance P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7896/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainअपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /8041/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Bhavan,386/370, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020. Street, Masjid (W),Mumbai-9. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /7896/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण आयकर अपील वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manjunath R. Swamy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement: 01.01. 2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 12.09.2011 Of The Cit(A)-19,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For Above Mentioned Assessment Year (Ay.).

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…was not warranted, that the assessee itself had offered disallowance of Rs.78.14 lacs, that the AO had made a disallowance of Rs.7.83 crores. He referred to the page No.23,25, and 29 of the paper book and relied upon the cases of Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78), K. Raheja Corpn. P.Ltd. (Income tax Appeal No.1260 of 2009-Hon’ble Bombay High Court), Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.117 of 2015- Hon’ble Delhi High Court) and Justice S.P. Bahrucha (53 SOT 39). He further stated that while giving appeal effect to the order of the FAA the AO had upheld the disallowance of Rs.78.50 lacs only.The DR supporte…

M/S. Jaksons Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2467/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. C. Mohanty, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Assessing Officer to exercise the powers vested in him u/s 131 to the hilt and in the event of his failure to do so, the blame cannot lie at the door of the assessee, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 and reply dated 12.12.07. Regarding Inspector’s report, it is submitted that the same had never been confronted to the appellant assessee. He submitted that the invoking of deeming provision u/s 68 is uncalled for due to the following reasons which were placed on record before the Assessing Officer:- “(a) share application money had been receiv…

Kunj Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. A.C.I.T., Cir-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 239/CTK/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…igh Court upheld the deletion and observed that It was not the case of the AO that any amount found credited In the Account of the 2 companies had direct or Indirect nexus with the assessee company. It is further noticed that in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC), it has been held that; "Where the assessee produced confirmation letters and discharges hundis (in this case the copies of cheques) giving the particulars of the creditors who themselves were income tax assessee and whose income tax index numbers (in this case PAN) were available with the revenue, finding of Tribunal that the assessee disch…

ITO 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chemical & Alkali Distributors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6274/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anju KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

…s a ",result of judicial pronouncement absolving the owner of liability provided such pronouncement is final. It need' not occur by an overt act. It may also be presumed by the conduct of the parties [CIT vs. Aqarpara Co. Ltd. (1986) 55 CTR (Cal) 218 : (1986) 158 ITR 78 (Cal) :].Where the levy was struck down by the Court but the Government passed the validating Act reviving the levy, section 41(1) could not be invoked [ClT vs. Punjab Oil Mills 1975 CTR (P&H) 97 : (1976) 102 332 (P&H). Sec. 41(1) can be invoked only if the concerned liability of assessee has ceased finally and there is no possibility of its reviv…

M.Kannabiran, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1863/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1863/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri M. Kannabiran, D-3, TNHB Quarters, The Income Tax Officer, Inner Circular Road, v. Non Corporate Ward – 20(3), Kilpauk Garden Colony, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 004. PAN : AKQPM 2080 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Siv…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga vs. M/S Karthik Poultry Farm, Chitradurga

In the result, revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12

ITA 1106/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…on over cost that can be the profit. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned CIT(A) has relied upon by the judgments of the ITO Vs Gurubachan Singh Juneja (216 ITR 99 (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT Vs S.M.Omar (201 ITR 608) (Cal.) Anis Ahmed & Sons Vs CIT (297 ITR 441) (SC) and CIT Vs President Industries (258 ITR 654) (Guj.), which has been approved by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs Balchand Ajit Kumar (263 ITR 610) (MP) and which, in our view, are applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 5.3.3 In the case on hand, the grievance of the revenue is that the assessee has not…

ITO(E), New Delhi vs. M/S Calorex Foundation, New Delhi

ITA 2876/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Kesang Y Shirpa, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Shri Ashish Goel, CAs
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 80G

…roceedings, assessee has filed complete evidence lying at pages 50-145 in the paper book, the onus stands shifted to the A.O. to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of corpus donors and relied upon the judgement cited as CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra has held as under: “Held, that in this case, the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the revenue. The revenue apart from issuin…

M/S. Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2436/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhirshri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

…on claimed loan and interest paid thereupon u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit. The ld. A.R placed on reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 [SC] 2. CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd [1986] 159 ITR 78 [SC] 3. G.G. Films Vs. ITO [1993] 44 TTJ 644 [Cochin]. 4. Anil Kumar Midha [HUF] Vs. ITO [2006] 100 TTJ 644 [Jodhpur] 5. CIT Vs. Shriram Syal Hydro Power (P) Ltd [2010] 78 CCH 195 [SC] 6. CIT Vs. Goyal Sons Golden State [2012] [Del] 7. Aravali Trading Co. VS. ITO [2008] 220 CTR 622 [Raj] 8. CIT Vs. Rajkumar Agarwal [2008] ITA No. 179/Del/2008 [All…

ITO, Pondicherry vs. V.Mohene, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1788 & 1796/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-2009 & 2009-2010)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…e stated that the affidavits from these 3 parties were already furnished before A.O during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee relied on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court Of India in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 to prove that the loans are genuine and the assessee has discharged onus of proof furnishing the details of the loan creditors, addresses of the creditors, PAN nos. and confirmations. Considering the evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well I.T.A.Nos.1788 &1796/Mds/2014 :- 12 -: as remand proceedin…

ITO, Pondicherry vs. V.Mohene, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1788/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1788 & 1796/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-2009 & 2009-2010)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…e stated that the affidavits from these 3 parties were already furnished before A.O during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee relied on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court Of India in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 to prove that the loans are genuine and the assessee has discharged onus of proof furnishing the details of the loan creditors, addresses of the creditors, PAN nos. and confirmations. Considering the evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well I.T.A.Nos.1788 &1796/Mds/2014 :- 12 -: as remand proceedin…

Pawan Kumar Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 137 / 2003HC Delhi27 Nov 2014
Section 260ASection 5Section 5(1)(ii)Section 64

…ITA No.137/2003 Page 1 of 11 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 137/2003 Date of decision: 27th November, 2014 PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Appellant Through Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vibhor Garg, Mr. Aseem Swaroop and Ms. Suvarna Kashyap, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMES…

Pawan Kumar Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/137/2003HC Delhi27 Nov 2014
Section 260ASection 5Section 5(1)(ii)Section 64

…ITA No.137/2003 Page 1 of 11 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 137/2003 Date of decision: 27th November, 2014 PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Appellant Through Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vibhor Garg, Mr. Aseem Swaroop and Ms. Suvarna Kashyap, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMES…

CIT vs. Titan Securities Ltd

ITA/263/2012HC Delhi28 Feb 2013

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 260ASection 68

…Page 10 of 15 enquiry into the material placed before him. The case before us does not fall under this category and it would be a travesty of truth and justice to express a view to the contrary. The case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) exemplifies the category of cases where no action is taken by the Assessing Officer to verify or conduct an enquiry into the particulars about the creditors furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in CIT v. Dolphin Canpack [2006] 283 ITR 190 (Delhi),…

CIT vs. Titan Securities Ltd

ITA-263/2012HC Delhi28 Feb 2013
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 260ASection 68

…Page 10 of 15 enquiry into the material placed before him. The case before us does not fall under this category and it would be a travesty of truth and justice to express a view to the contrary. The case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) exemplifies the category of cases where no action is taken by the Assessing Officer to verify or conduct an enquiry into the particulars about the creditors furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in CIT v. Dolphin Canpack [2006] 283 ITR 190 (Delhi),…