Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT

49 ITR 723High Court1963#844 most cited

What is Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When a cash credit is found, the assessee discharges the initial burden by proving the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, shifting the burden to the Revenue. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the creditor's funds (source of source).

123

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credits · onus of proof · identity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · source of source · shifting burden · creditworthiness · addition under section 68

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 115BBESection 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

summons under section 131section 131(1)source of sourcepermanent account numberonus of proofcreditworthiness of the creditorpaper companyaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionshare application moneysection 131

Judgments citing Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f the Income Tax Act. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement : i) 257 Taxman 440 (SC) Pr. Cit v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Soivex affirmed the judgment in the case of Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Soivex reported in 253 Taxman 135 (Guj) ii) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT iii) 245 ITR 160 (MP) CiT v. Metachem Industries iv) 252 ITR 344 (P&H) CIT v. Barna Electro Corporation v) 11 TMI 630 (P&H) CIT v. Metal & Metals of India vi) 208 CTR 459 (P&H) C1T v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 UR 706 (All) CIT v…

Kanchan Plastics Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 68

…the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of account but not the source of the source as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 723. The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques. Merely because summons issued to some of the creditors could not be s…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii). CIT Vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 115 ITR 0408 (Cal) Accordingly, in the backdrop of the facts of the case r.w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that a…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii). CIT Vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 115 ITR 0408 (Cal) Accordingly, in the backdrop of the facts of the case r.w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that a…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii). CIT Vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 115 ITR 0408 (Cal) Accordingly, in the backdrop of the facts of the case r.w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that a…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…prove the nature and source of the credit/loans and the remand report and considering the ratio laid in the decisions of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation P Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) , ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises Orient Trading Co Ltd v CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (1963), DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 , Pr CIT V M/s Chawla Interbuild Construction vs Pvt Ltd ITA 1103 of 2015 , Pr CIT Vs Hi-tech Residency 257 Taxman 335 (SC) and CIT Vs Haresh Mehta 251 Taxman 346(2017) passed an order dated 05.11.2018 and deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Ld CIT(A)…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…prove the nature and source of the credit/loans and the remand report and considering the ratio laid in the decisions of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation P Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) , ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises Orient Trading Co Ltd v CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (1963), DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 , Pr CIT V M/s Chawla Interbuild Construction vs Pvt Ltd ITA 1103 of 2015 , Pr CIT Vs Hi-tech Residency 257 Taxman 335 (SC) and CIT Vs Haresh Mehta 251 Taxman 346(2017) passed an order dated 05.11.2018 and deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Ld CIT(A)…

Mishra Infrastructures Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 11(1), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 82/PUN/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…aced reliance on the following case laws : 1. late Rajinder Pershad, reptd. By LRs vs. Smt. Dershan Devi [2001] suppl (1) SCR 442. 2. Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & another [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) 3. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [Central], Calcutta [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) 4. Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 236 ITR 360 (Guj.) 4.1. Mr. Ganoo reiterated the assessee’s stand throughout that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned addition(s) in issue. 5. Learned DR has placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities respective discussions in making sec.68 unexpl…

DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Landmark Realty, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3954/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…on the ground of suspicion and presumption. There is not an iota of evidence against the assessee which the Ld.AO could procure to make the disallowance/addition. It has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trade Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [49 ITR 723] and Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gani Silk Palace [71 ITR 373] and other courts that once the assessee explains its case with evidences, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to show that as to why the assessee's case cannot be accepted. In this case, the Ld.AO has not discharged the burden which shifted to him after the assessee…

DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Landmark Realty, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3953/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…on the ground of suspicion and presumption. There is not an iota of evidence against the assessee which the Ld.AO could procure to make the disallowance/addition. It has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trade Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [49 ITR 723] and Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gani Silk Palace [71 ITR 373] and other courts that once the assessee explains its case with evidences, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to show that as to why the assessee's case cannot be accepted. In this case, the Ld.AO has not discharged the burden which shifted to him after the assessee…

Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, Jashpur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 96/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito-2, Raigargh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, College Road, Dist : Jashpur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /10 /2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bilaspur, Dated 06.03.2018, On The Following Ground :- 1. Whether In The Facts & Circumstance & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On The Points Of The Law Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao By Ignoring The Facts As Brought On Record By The Ao That The Assessee Failed To Prove The Identity Of The Creditor, Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Of The Investor As Per The Parameters Of The Legal Provisions U/S 68 Of The Act? 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Decisions In The Following Lead Cases:- (I) Mcdowell & Company Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 22 Taxman 11 (Sc). (Ii) M/S Raj Mandir Estates Pvt Ltd Vs Pcit-Iii, Kolkata (Slp No. 22566-22567) Dated 09.01.2017. (Iii) Cit Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd., 208 Itr 465(Cal).

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…not the responsibility of the firm." (iv) In the case of CIT vs.Nevendram Ahuja [2007] 290 ITR 453, the Hon'ble M.P.High Court has relied on the following observations of the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd., vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723:- "When however in a case where the entry stands in the name of the third party, the assessee satisfies the Income Tax Officer as to the identity of the third party and also supplies such other evidence which will show, prima facie, that the entry is not fictitious, the initial burden which lies on him can be said to have been discharged by him. I…

Rajat Alloys (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9087/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cus Exports Pvt. Ltd. (228 Taxmann 88); 5. Nipun Builders & Dev. (P)Ltd. (350 ITR 407); 6. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. [2014] 42 Taxmann.com 339 (Delhi); 7. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P)Ltd. [2104] 42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi); 8. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [49 ITR 723] (Bombay H.C.); 9. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254) (Gauhati H.C); 10. CIT vs. Metachem Industries [245 ITR 160] (Madhya Pradesh H.C.); 11. S. Hastimal vs. CIT [49 ITR 273] (Madras). 12. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 13. I have consid…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…nt case, as the appellant firm has adduced evidences to establish prima facie the aforesaid onus shifts to the department. In support of the same the appellant firm has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Orient Trading Company Ltd. v/s. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) ii) Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Dhanlaxmi Equipment Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 189/2016 iii} Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) viiij High Court of Madras In S. Hastimal (1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) iv) Gujarat High Court in the ease of DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 (TR 360 (Guj.) v] Gujarat High Court In the ease of CIT vs. RanchhodJivabhai Nakrmva (Tax A…

DCIT -15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Indian Institute of Excellence & Consultancy Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2691/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-15(2)(1) Vs. M/S Indian Institute Of Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Excellence & Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Consultancy Pvt Ltd Road, Mumbai – 400 4Th Floor, Gaurav 020 Plaza, Rrt Road, Mulund (W)-Mumbai- 400 080. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci1667D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.V. Tripathi.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Virag Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 12.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-24, Mumbai & Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.V. Tripathi.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Virag Shah.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Tax Act. The Ld AR and the appellant relied on various judgments which are part of the paper book. However, I would like to refer relevant extract from the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case Orient Trading Company Limited Vs Commission of Income Tax (49 ITR 723 Born.). The following para is reproduced M/s Indian Institute of Excellence and Consultancy Pvt ltd, Mumbai. Cash credit— Burden of proof— Cash Credit in the name of third party — When the entry stands in the name of third party, the Assessee satisfies the ITO as to the identity of the third party and also supplies such other evidence which will s…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITR 100 (Bom) (xi). CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del) (xii). DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xiii). CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 125 (Guj) (xiv). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (xv). CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj) (xvi). PCIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom) (xvii). CIT Vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 115 ITR 0408 (Cal) Accordingly, in the backdrop of the facts of the case r.w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that a…

ITO 26 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pratishna Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4899/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…f. Further in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the alleged hawala parties have made submission before the AO through registered post. 7.3.5 It has been held by Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd vs. CIT(49 ITR 723), Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (103 ITR 344), Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Qani Silk Palace (171 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2010-11) M/s. Pratishna Engineers ITR 373), Allahbad High Court in the case of Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (98 ITR 280), it will not thereafter be for the assessee to explain further. The burd…

ACIT-26(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pratishna Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…f. Further in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the alleged hawala parties have made submission before the AO through registered post. 7.3.5 It has been held by Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd vs. CIT(49 ITR 723), Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (103 ITR 344), Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Qani Silk Palace (171 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2010-11) M/s. Pratishna Engineers ITR 373), Allahbad High Court in the case of Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (98 ITR 280), it will not thereafter be for the assessee to explain further. The burd…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 69A

…numan Aggarwal [ 1985] 151 ITR 150 (Patna) • DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) • M/s Suraj Stones Corporate Ltd. Vs. ITO, Bengaluru in ITA No. 52/Bang/2020 vide order dt. 18/02/2021 (ITAT Banglore) • Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 723 (Mum) • Shri Chunni Lal reported in 211 ITR 11 (Statue) (P&H) 6.4 It was submitted that the deceased assessee apart from declaration from the depositors had also furnished evidences in the form of bank pass book of Shri Maninder Singh Sahi in Canada coupled with the remittance advices which were not doubted, therefore the reliance placed by the Ld…

M/S Swargamrut Dairy Prv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6839/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 11(2)(2) 113, 1St Chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 Pan: Aalcs3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department By : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Menon
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…s no justification in making addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: - (i). CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (p.) Ltd [25 Taxman 80F (SC)] (ii). Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [49 ITR 723 ((Bombay)] (iii). H.R. Mehta v. ACIT [72 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay)] (iv). CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [43 taxmann.com 251 (Guj.)] (v). Gujarat Television (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [94 taxmann.com 400 (Guj.)] (vi). ACIT v. Vikrant Puri [82 taxmann.com 48 (Delhi - Trib.) (vii). DCIT v. Bairagra Builders P Ltd., (ITAT 'B' Bench, Mumbai) (viii). Yam…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…hus, the addition made treating the loan given by the wife of the partner of the assessee firm was deleted with the assessee firm being source of sources cannot be examined. That Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (BOM) held that in case of cash, credit, the initial, burden lies on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor and produced the evidences showing that the amount credited was not fictitious. In case, the initial burden is discharged, the burden shifted on the revenue to show that the entry represented assessee suppressed income. In case,…