Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 16 In CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 IT 465; Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 148.

16 In CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 IT 465; Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT (193 ITR 318)

Q: What is 16 In CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 IT 465; Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT authority for?

Merely making payments by account payee cheques does not automatically validate a transaction or discharge the assessee's onus to prove the genuineness of cash credits under Section 68.

Q: How many judgments cite 16 In CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 IT 465; Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite 16 In CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 IT 465; Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT (193 ITR 318), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Prodigy Infomatics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, 15(2)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed

ITA 2124/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishprodigy Infomatics Private Vs. Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Limited Director Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Plot No. D- 388, Midc, Ttc Aayakar Bhavan Industrial Area, Kukshet Mumbai- 400020 Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan/Gir No. Aadcp3211A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 18.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal.

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Prodigy Infomatics Private Vs. ITO, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Limited Director ITO, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Plot No. D- 388, MIDC, TTC Aayakar Bhavan Industrial Area, Kukshet Mumbai- 400020 Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 PAN/GIR No. AADCP3211A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR) Date of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challeng…

DCIT-27(2), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pyramid Infratech Co., Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…n the following case laws : 1. In Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 itr 801 (SC) 2. Precision Finance P. Ltd.;s case [1994] 208 ITR 465(Cal) 3. M.A. Unneri Kutty Vs. CIT 198 itr 147 (Kerala) 4. R.B.Mittal V/s. CIT 131 taxman 155 (Raj) 5. Nizam Wool Agency V. CIT 193 ITR 318 (All) 6. Riddhi Promoter(P) Ltd. V CI 8.5 The appellant has filed elaborate rebuttal of the above are stating that onus cast upon the appellant was discharged during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant submits that the AO has failed to establish that these unsecured loans were accommodation entries. The AO has also not spelt out…

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…08 ITR 465, 470 (Cal). The manner of payment by the account payee cheque is also not sacrosanct and this cannot make a bogus transaction as genuine one (CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., (208 ITR 465, 470, 471 (Cal). Cf. Nizam Wool Agency -vs.- CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 318, 320 (All)]. All these transactions may apparently seem to be real. However, it needs to be emphasized that apparent has to be distinguished from real. In this context the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540(SC)are pertinent, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed:- "It is t…

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2048/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…he assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” v) Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (Ail):- “That mere payment by an account payee cheques is not sacrosanct nor can it make a non genuine transaction genuine.” vi) CIT Vs. Korlay Trading Co. Limited [1998] 230 ITR 820 (Cal.):- “That mere filing of income tax file numbers of the creditors is not enough to prove the genuineness of the credits.” vii) a) Bharati Private Limited vs.…

Gulmohar Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(2), Kolkata

ITA 270/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 5Section 68

…s not sacrosanct for a cash credit to become genuine and definitely this cannot make a bogus transaction as a genuine one. Reliance may be placed on the judicial decisions like CIT Vs. Precison Finance Pvt. Ltd, - 208 ITR 465 (Cal), Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT, 193 ITR 318 (Ail)”. 17. On perusal of the complete order, it nowhere reveals when ld. Assessing Officer has started the investigation? When he has issued notice under section 142(1) or 133(6) to the subscriber of the shares as well as summons under section 131 of the Act to the Directors of the assessee-company? There is no analytical finding at the end of t…

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

ITA 1605/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…see. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough. Mere payment by a/c payee cheques is not sacrosanct nor can it make a non-genuine transaction genuine [CIT vs. Precision Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470, 471 (Cal.), Cf. Nizam Wool Agency vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318, 320 (All.). 3.1.10 In view of the above discussion and ratio of judicial pronouncements, it is held that assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with regard to the onus to be discharged by it to explain the identity of the creditors/ investors their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as provided in Section 68 of the Act w…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa vs. Pritham & Prathik Hospitals Private Limited, Kadapa

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…d (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470(Cal) The manner of payment by the account payee cheque is also no sacrosanct and this cannot make a bogus transaction as genuine one: • CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd 208 ITR 465, 470, 471(Cal) • Cf. Nizam Wool Agency vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318, 320(A11).” 13. Per contra, ld. AR for the assessee had submitted that one more opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee to prove and produce the shareholders before the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the shareholders. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the mater…

M/S. Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ground numbers 5 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 514/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 69C

…ings of the Assessing Officer, I disagree with the arguments putforth by the Appellant in view of the following decisions of higher authorities: a. CIT vs. Precision Finance Co. Pvt Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470, 471 (Cal) b. Cf. Nizam Wool Agency vs.CIT(1992) 193 ITR 318, 320 (All). c. CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd- 1871TR 596 (Cat.) In all the above decisions it has been held that it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough. The enquiry of the Income-tax Officer…