KAMLESH JAIN, DURG, DURG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

ITA 574/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 July 2026AY 2018-199 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for the loans from Smt. Nirmala Lodha and Smt. Rashmi Lodha, the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established. For the Rs. 1,80,000 transaction, it was considered rent paid, which was offered for taxation by the recipient, thus no prejudice to revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee treated Rs. 1,80,000 as rent paid to Smt. Seema Jain, but it was recorded as an unsecured loan in the books. For other loans, the assessee provided confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements, including details of the source of funds for the lenders.

What were the issues?

Whether the unsecured loan entries were genuine and whether the rent payment mistakenly recorded as a loan was taxable under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 22.06.2026 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

Brief facts in this case are that the assessee has submitted details of unsecured loans taken as reported in Form 3CD a/w. copy of ITRs, confirmation letters and bank statements. The assessee had also submitted copy of ledger, confirmation an

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →