JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. PLATINUM WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 130/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 March 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had satisfactorily established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital transaction, including the 'source of the source' as required by the proviso to Section 68. The AO's addition was based on suspicion and insufficient inquiry, failing to rebut the evidence provided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a hotel business, received Rs. 45,00,000 from M/s. Aravali Highrise Pvt. Ltd. for partly paid equity shares, including share premium. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing the investor's low income and lack of creditworthiness, despite extensive documentation provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital and premium received, including the 'source of the source', to avoid an addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131,Section 133(6),Section 56(2)(viib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show 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.

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2026Pronounced: 10.03.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The present appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 12.12.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The brief facts in this case are as follows: “3.1 The appellant is engaged in the business of operating a hotel. During the relevant previous year, the appellant is

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 →