PODDAR FININ COSULTANCY PVT.LTD,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, PANVEL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12.10 crores as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, even after remand proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee introduced unsecured loans of Rs. 12.10 crores from two entities. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) treated these as unexplained cash credits as the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
What were the issues?
Whether the unsecured loans introduced by the assessee were genuine and properly explained as per Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sumati Dayal v. CIT1,967 citing214 ITR 801 · 1995 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Durga Prasad More1,579 citing82 ITR 540 · 1971 · SC
- (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.696 citing412 ITR 161 · 2019 · SC
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd.216 citing367 ITR 306 · 2014 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Maithan International119 citing375 ITR 123 · 2015 · HC
- V.I.S.P. (P) Ltd. v. CIT35 citing265 ITR 202 · 2004 · HC
- Mangilal Jain v. ITO (Mad)27 citing315 ITR 105 · 2009 · HC
- 1. Toby Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. CIT23 citing324 ITR 338 · 2010 · HC
- 13. Prakashchandra Singhvi (HUF) v. ITO (ITAT, Ahd)3 citing134 ITD 283 · ITAT
- 3 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM
आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Thane. 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Thane. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
Poddar Finin Consultancy P.Ltd., S.No. Details Date Initials 1 Draft dictated on 18.07.2022 2 Draft placed before author 23.09.2022 Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 Date of uploading of Order 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026