14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd.

403 ITR 415High Court2018#1686 most cited

What is 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee's burden is limited to explaining the immediate source of a cash credit; there is no legal requirement to explain the source of the source.

67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. · Veedhata Towers · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · source of source · identity genuineness creditworthiness · assessee's onus · 403 ITR 415

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)(d)source of sourcejewellery found during searchsummons under section 131paper companysection 131(1)onus of proofsurrender of incomeunexplained jewellerycreditworthiness of the creditoraccumulated profitssection 43ca

Judgments citing 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd.

DCIT- 27(2), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Nayan Builders, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai

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

ITA 4039/MUM/2023[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 65 of 158 creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transactio…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 65 of 158 creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transactio…

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2042/MUM/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025
For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

…s of receipt of amount by ST from RBS and SST-Held, ves Whether, therefore, impugned addition under section68 made to income of assessee was to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 13 to 16] [In favour of assessee). 48. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), the court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. 49. We also place reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Rohini Builders reported in [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guja…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…ied on the catena of decision for the same which are mentioned as below: a. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 680) b. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (403 ITR 415) c. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITO vs. Gaurav Triyugi Singh (121 taxmann.com 86) d. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Green Infra Ltd. (78 taxmann.com 340) 9. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has…

Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…ied on the catena of decision for the same which are mentioned as below: a. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 680) b. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (403 ITR 415) c. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITO vs. Gaurav Triyugi Singh (121 taxmann.com 86) d. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Green Infra Ltd. (78 taxmann.com 340) 9. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has…

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1159/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…ied on the catena of decision for the same which are mentioned as below: a. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 680) b. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (403 ITR 415) c. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITO vs. Gaurav Triyugi Singh (121 taxmann.com 86) d. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Green Infra Ltd. (78 taxmann.com 340) 9. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has…

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1158/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…ied on the catena of decision for the same which are mentioned as below: a. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 680) b. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (403 ITR 415) c. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITO vs. Gaurav Triyugi Singh (121 taxmann.com 86) d. Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Green Infra Ltd. (78 taxmann.com 340) 9. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 58/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 57/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 56/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 55/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 54/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 53/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

…per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely : (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the 36 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain ITA no.53, to 59/Nag./2024 source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness…

Umang Boards (Mumbai), Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6318/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar, Accountatn Member Umang Boards (Mumbai) Vs. Ito – 14(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Pvt Ltd Road, Mumbai – Umang House, 7-B, 400020. Bharat Mata Path, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Pan/Gir No. Aabcu0882C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…confirmation, their bank statements showing payment of share application money, only because those persons had not appeared before Assessing Officer would not negate case of assessee so as to invoke section 68..." Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom) "the court held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has explained…

Pooja Equiresearch Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5941/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5941/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(2), B-101, Hari Darshan Bhogilal Mumbai Phadia Road, Kandivali (West) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacp 6499 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya & MsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.5941/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), B-101, Hari Darshan Bhogilal Mumbai Phadia Road, Kandivali (West) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AAACP 6499 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा क…

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

…s per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely: (1) identity of the creditor, (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1(2, Nagpur vs. M/S. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely: (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit- worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…ons, no addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the source of the money received. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: 21 CO No.21/PUN/2024 (i) PCIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd., 403 ITR 415 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bom) (iii) Appolo Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in Writ Peition (L) No.3393 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 (iv) PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping (P.) Ltd., 400 ITR 439 (Bom) (v) SLP against the order has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.04.2018 reported in 93 taxmann.c…

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to

ITA 3531/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: We Advert To The Grounds Taken In The Cross Appeals, It Would First Be Relevant To Cull Out The Basic Facts Of The Case & Effect Of Law In Brief In Respect Of Certain Ays. Search U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Was Conducted Against The Rubberwala Group, On 17-03-2021 Thereby Triggering Section 153A Of The Act. Prior To The Date Of Search, The Income-Tax Assessments For Ays 2015-16 To 2019-20 Were Either Completed U/S 143(1)/143(3) Of The Act And/Or The Time Limit For Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Had Expired. Accordingly, The Income-Tax 3

For Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…s per requirement of section68, the assessee has to explain or satisfy three conditions, namely: (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the identity of the creditor. There is also no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction. That apart, the creditor has expla…