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.

M/S Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR
Section 68

…The said position has also been reiterated by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its recent decision tilted as Gaurav Triyugi Singh V/s ITO (ITA No.1750 of 207, dated 22/01/2020) which also consider its earlier decision of Pr.CIT V/s Veedhata Towers Pvt. Ltd. (2018 403 ITR 415). 2. It is settled position of law that to avoid the rigors of Section 68, the assessee must prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders / investors to advance such monies and genuineness of the transactions. Once these three ingredients are fulfilled by the assessee, the primary onus casted upon him, in this regard, could be said to have…

Im.Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As M/S.Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…at loans taken from above parties were genuine, in contraventions of settled legal position of law. In the case of M/s. IM Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as M/s. Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Veedhata Towers Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 415 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High court held that the 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, the assessee has discharged his duty by providing all the information required but the assessing officer had doubt on the source of source…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…18. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that share application money amounting to Rs.90.00 crores received from M/s. BTPL can not be treated as income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. In the case of PCIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 415 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that source of source is not required to be proved. Similarly in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that share application money can not be treated as cash credit. Considering the fact of the case in the M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investme…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decisions of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd (330 ITR 298 Delhi), Rajasthan High Court in Labh Chand Bhora Vs ITO (219 CTR 571), Bombay High Court in Veeddhata Tower Pvt Ltd (403 ITR 415 Bom), Gujarat High Court in Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs CIT (280 ITR 512) Devine, Bombay High Court in NuPower Renewables (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (104 taxmann.com 307), PCIT Vs Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd (105 taxmann.com 206), Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Vertas (India) Ltd (ITA No. 3276/Mum/2016) M/s Arshiya International Ltd. 10. We have considered the ri…

M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 573/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…tion to section 68 is not retrospective as held by Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom) [2017] 247 Taxman 245 (Bom), [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom) and Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. 403 ITR 415 (Bom). The learned Counsel further, placing reliance in the case of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. [2012] 248 CTR (Del.) 33 / 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) SLP dismissed reported CC-15640/2012 dtd. 17.09.2012 submitted that mere failure of the creditors to respond to Department`s notices could not be a basis to conclude that the assessee has investe…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kukreja Developers & Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7280/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7280/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Kukreja Developers & Income Tax-14(2)(1) Builders Private Limited Room No.455 (Formerly Known As Gopi Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Ltd.) Aaykar Bhavan, 4Th Floor Vs. ‘Laalasis’, Plot No.219 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 11Th Road, Chembur Mumbai-400 071 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-1231-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: J.P.Bairagra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [333 ITR 100], the relevant extract of which has already been reproduced in the impugned order. This view is further fortified by the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in PCIT Vs. Veedhata Tower Private Limited [403 ITR 415] which, in turn, draws strength from the earlier decision of same court rendered in CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 680] and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5]. Therefore, weighing the facts of present case against the touchstone of ratio of binding judicial precedents rendered by…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…(P) Ltd. [2017] 400 ITR 439 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Apeak Info Tech Nagpur & Ors [2017] 397 148 (Bom- HC), CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta [2017] 251 Taxman 346 (Bom-HC), PCIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom-HC). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that as the assessee failed to produce the parties for examination before the AO and further failed to given the latest known address at which the department could issue summons u/s 131 to the applicants, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.1,43,50,000/- made by the AO. 7. We…