2013: (v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); (vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers

111 ITR 951High Court1978#5486 most cited

What is 2013: (v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); (vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers authority for?

Merely filing confirmatory letters from creditors does not discharge the assessee's onus to prove the genuineness of loans or share application money credited in their books under Section 68. The assessee must also establish the creditworthiness of the creditor.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharati Private Limited vs CIT · Section 68 · share application money · loan creditors · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · unexplained cash credit · addition under section 68 · onus on assessee · confirmatory letters

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoraddition under section 68share application moneyaddition u/s 68entry operatorgenuineness of the transactionsection 133(6)unexplained cash creditaccommodation entrysection 133income-tax officersection 131

Judgments citing 2013: (v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); (vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers

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

…Industries P. Ltd., vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 (CAL), CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal), M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker.). 5.6 It has also been held in Bharati P.Ltd. vs. CIT. (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal.), CIT vs WJ Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal), CIT vs. United Commercial Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.) that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assesse. 5.7 In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in view of sect…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ere production of the confirmation letters before the AO would not by itself prove that the loans have been obtained from those loan creditors or that they have credit-worthiness. 15.3 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharati (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision that mere filing of confirmatory letters did not discharge the onus that lay on the assessee. 15.4 Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Rajshree Synthetics (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj.) has held that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee. 15.5 Hon…

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

ITA 1024/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Hitiesha Ruhela, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nfirmations. I have perused the copies of the confirmations filed by the appellant in the appeal proceedings and the finding of the assessing authority in this regard is found to be correct and is hereby upheld. In the case of Bharati (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Hon'ble Calcutta High Court) it was held that production of even confirmatory letters from the lender parties before the Income-tax Officer in support of the loan alone would not suffice the loan as genuine. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. 11994] 208 ITR 465/11995] 82 Taxman 31 (Hon'ble Calcutta High Court) it was held that "I…

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

…ine 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. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.) and b) CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Private Limited [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal.):- “That mere tiling of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that ties on the assessee." viii) CIT Vs. V. M. Ganppathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623:- “Once it is held that an amount credited in the accounts books of the assessee is the in…

ITO WARD - 14(1), NEW DELHI vs. KAKA SERVICES PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…factorily 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. 5.8 It has been held in the case of Bharati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal. And CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee. 5.9 In view of the above cited reasons and the judicial pronouncements, the assessee company has failed to discharge its onus, as explained/stated in detail supra,…

LOKENATH INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…ndustries (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 131 ITR 688, Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, 14 Lokenath Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re- rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481.” 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the judgments in the case of CIT Vs. M/s N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. dated 21.12.2012 (Del. H…

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1, THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES , THANE

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…so referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand report dated 10.2.2017 of the AO has been erroneously reproduced in the impugned order of Ld CIT(A). The extract of the affidavit are reproduced as under “After verfication of th…

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1 , THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES, THANE

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…so referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand report dated 10.2.2017 of the AO has been erroneously reproduced in the impugned order of Ld CIT(A). The extract of the affidavit are reproduced as under “After verfication of th…

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

…CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal.) Oriental Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) I.T.A No.1605/Del/2018 7 131 ITR 688 (Cal.), CIT vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.). Further, in Bharati Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal.), CIT vs. WJ Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal.) CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.) it was held that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough. Mere payment by a/c payee cheques is not sa…

MANJU SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 45(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8275/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Manju Sharma, Vs Ito, Wz-43B, Meenakshi Garden, Ward-45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aatps2170A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishnan Sampath, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Proprietor Of M/S Eastern Galaxy Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Export Of Handicrafts & Decorative Items. She Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.47,10,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass With The Reason That There Is “Large Increase In Sundry Creditors With Respect To Turnover As Compared To Preceding Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Krishnan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 68

…ile disallowing the sundry creditors as genuine, is hereby confirmed.” 14.1. While holding as above, the ld.CIT(A) relied on the following decisions:- i) Oriental Wire Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1981), 131 ITR 688 (Cal); ii) Bharati (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal); iii) Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) 8 iv) CIT v. K.M. Mahim (1995) 81 Taxman 222 (Ker.); v) CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465; vi) Gumani Ram Siri Ram vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 337 (P&H); vii) Roshan Di Hatti (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC); viii) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO (2010) 187 Taxman 338 (Raj); ix…

ABHINAV GARG,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1615/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Ashvini KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…ladies in their confirmations did not explain as to what was their source of giving cash amount to the assessee. It is merely stated that the amounts have been given out of love and affection. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharati Pvt. Ltd., 111 ITR 951 and United Commercial and Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 596 held that “mere filing of confirmations is not sufficient to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.” Considering the totality of 7 ITA.No.1615/Del./2018 Shri Abhinav Garg, Noida. the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that it was unaccounted cash…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…(1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial & Industral Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " M.A. Unneeri Kutty Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker) " CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470 (Cal) " Bharati P. Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) " CIT Vs W. J. Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal) 9. The AO further observed that the addition of Rs.2,24,50,000/- earlier made in this case on the same ground had been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) because the statement of Sh. Mahesh Garg was general and now Sh. Mahesh Garg had given a 9 Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. specific statement w…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.K.TRANSPORT & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, KORBA(CG)

ITA 242/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…0) (iii) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) (iv) N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: (v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); (vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); (vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); (viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/2015 (ix) Rathi Finlease Ltd. (IT. Appeal No. 63 of 2004, dtd 11-10-2007) (x) MAF Academy P Ltd (ITA no. 341 /2012) dated 28.11.2013; (xi) Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. ( 333 ITR 119/ 198); (xii) VijayKumarTalwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1/196 (S.C) (xiii) Agraw…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.K.TRANSPORT & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, KORBA(CG)

ITA 238/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…0) (iii) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) (iv) N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: (v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); (vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); (vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); (viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/2015 (ix) Rathi Finlease Ltd. (IT. Appeal No. 63 of 2004, dtd 11-10-2007) (x) MAF Academy P Ltd (ITA no. 341 /2012) dated 28.11.2013; (xi) Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. ( 333 ITR 119/ 198); (xii) VijayKumarTalwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1/196 (S.C) (xiii) Agraw…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.K.TRANSPORT & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, KORBA(CG)

ITA 237/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…0) (iii) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) (iv) N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: (v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); (vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); (vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); (viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/2015 (ix) Rathi Finlease Ltd. (IT. Appeal No. 63 of 2004, dtd 11-10-2007) (x) MAF Academy P Ltd (ITA no. 341 /2012) dated 28.11.2013; (xi) Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. ( 333 ITR 119/ 198); (xii) VijayKumarTalwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1/196 (S.C) (xiii) Agraw…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.K.TRANSPORT & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, KORBA(CG)

ITA 236/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…0) (iii) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) (iv) N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: (v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); (vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); (vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); (viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/2015 (ix) Rathi Finlease Ltd. (IT. Appeal No. 63 of 2004, dtd 11-10-2007) (x) MAF Academy P Ltd (ITA no. 341 /2012) dated 28.11.2013; (xi) Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. ( 333 ITR 119/ 198); (xii) VijayKumarTalwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1/196 (S.C) (xiii) Agraw…

SMT. GIALSO DEVI,PANIPAT vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…r any written request has been received in this office. Thus the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the depositors.” 6. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Bharti (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) " CIT Vs W.J. Klarler & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial and Ind. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " Precision Finance Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) " Nizam Wood Agency Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs…

M/S. ROHIT BAL vs. ACIT,

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Surendra KumarFor Respondent: Ms. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 68

…by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any confirmation or any evidence on record, it is difficult to believe the explanation of the assessee. Hon'ble. Calcutta High Court in the cases of Bharati Private Ltd. vs. CIT 111 ITR 951 and CIT vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. 187 ITR 596 have held that mere filing of confirmation not enough to prove credit. However in the present case the assessee has not even filed the confirmation from the creditors. Therefore credit remained unexplained. Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon certain case laws on the propos…

MR VIDIT JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3075/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia and Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DR
Section 131

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 Shri Vidit Jain, ITO Vs. 26, Friends Colony West Ward-14 (1) New Delhi – 110 065 New Delhi. PAN AALPJ7086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pradeep Dinodia and Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA Department by: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 03//05/2017 Date of pronouncement 23/05/2017 Per BHAVNESH SAINI, Judicial Member ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) 7 Delhi dated 31st March, 2015 for asstt. Year 2010-11, challenging t…

ACIT 9(3), MUMBAI vs. STATIONERY POINT INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8054/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8054/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit-9(3), Stationery Point India Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 229, A-7/60, Saraf Choudhary Nagar, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs 3137 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Haresh P. Shah

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed RizwanFor Respondent: Shri Haresh P. Shah
Section 143(3)Section 68

…elevant bank statement of M/s Pushkaraj Corporation, Prop Mrs Sharmila Kashid. viii Confirmation letters, copies of share applications of others including employees.’ Confirmations, by themselves do not prove the credit (refer: Bharati P. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal); CIT v. W. J. Walker & Co., (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal); CIT v. United commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal). The assessee is an unlisted company, whose shares are, therefore, illiquid. There is nothing on record to show that the share subscription had been sought in the course of raising share capital from…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2