How many judgments cite Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd.?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. (154 ITR 244), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 132(1), Section 139, Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd.

154 ITR 244High Court1985#1543 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. authority for?

If loans are provided by account payee cheques, this establishes the identification of parties and fulfills the borrower's burden of proof under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. · Section 68 · cash credits · account payee cheques · identification of parties · discharge of burden · creditworthiness · genuineness of transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 132(1)Section 139 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

principal officer creditworthiness of the creditor source of source national faceless assessment centre addition u/s 68 admission of additional evidence share application money entry operator section 69c rule 46a section 40a faceless assessment

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd.

M/S. Anila Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3415/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142Section 144ASection 245(4)Section 251Section 292CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3415/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/s. Anila Industries Limited, Vs DCIT (HQ), 308, Aruncahal Building, Central Circle III, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECA0390A Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 01.02.2017 of ld. CIT (A)-XXXIII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds h…

Shree Krishna Hindu Merchants Club, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 30

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5103/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Shree Krishna Hindu Vs. Ito 16(2)(4), Mumbai Merchants Club, “Belle Vue”, 44, Chowpatty Road, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aabas6742D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 68

…ount was filed with the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 22nd October, 2012. As per learned AR, no loan confirmation was asked during the assessment proceedings. Learned AR relied on the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Bahri Brothers Pvt. Ltd., 154 ITR 244 in support of the proposition that assessee has discharged primary onus, therefore, burden is shifted to the revenue to disapprove the contention of assessee with regard to genuineness of credits. 9. We have considered rival contentions and found from record that the assessee has taken certain unsecured loans in the earlier years from seven parti…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2625/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…creditworthiness of parties (creditors) is apparent from details as parties are mainly corporate entities including listed companies financial details of which is available in public domain. The AR has filed a case law of Addl. CIT Vs. Bahri Bros. Pvt. Ltd. (154 ITR 244) Patna. In this order the Hon'ble High Court has observed "the very fact that all the transactions were entered into between the parties through account-payee cheques makes the question of identity of creditors fall into oblivion and it becomes absolutely irrelevant. I have considered the finding of the AO. in his assessment order and I have als…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2126/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 68

…) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO e) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders f) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. j) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Tolaram Daga vs. CIT k) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 6.1 As regards addition of Rs. 5,49,000/- representing loans received by the assessee and, held to be unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Ld. A.R. of the assessee stated that these are the uns…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Section 68

…el), wherein it has been held that where the transactions were through cheque , the genuineness of the transaction is duly established. He also further relied on the judgement in the case of additional CIT Vs. Bahri Brothers Private Limited reported in (1985) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) wherein it is held that very fact that all the transactions were entered into between the parties through the account payee cheques makes a question of identity of creditors for into oblivion and it becomes absolutely irrelevant. 8.2 The Ld. counsel further relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Bu…

M/S India Finance Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - VIII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 678/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…Year 2009-10. 8 India Finance Ltd., AY 2009-10 3.9. The ld AR also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- Diagonostics vs CIT & Anr reported in (2011) 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Addl CIT vs Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd reported in (1985) 154 ITR 244 (Pat) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & Anr reported in (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) ITO vs Sri Kalin Dutta in ITA NO. 1055/Kol/2013 dated 10.6.2016 (Kolkata Tribunal) DCIT vs Sunita Khemka in ITA Nos. 714 to 718 /Kol/2011 dated 28.10.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) We find that in all the aforesaid decisions, it was only held that once the assessee had disclosed…

ITO Ward 17 (4) vs. Vital Communication Ltd

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2448/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s Vital Communication Ltd., Ward 17(4), New Delhi 606- Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (PAN:AAACV-2016-L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, Advs. Date of Hearing : 17-05-2016 Date of Order : 15-06-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. This Appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-…

I.T.O WD - 1(2), Hooghly vs. Sri Kalin Dutta, Hooghly

In the result, appeal by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1055/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)

…erefore, in our considered view, merely notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act cannot be the sole ground for making the disallowance. In holding so, we find the support from the following judgments of Hon’ble High Courts:- a) ACIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 244 (Pat) wherein the Hon’ble court has held: identify of creditors is not relevant for cheque transactions - the very fact that all the transactions were entered into between the parties through account payee cheques makes the question of identity of creditors fall into oblivion and it becomes absolutely irrelevant. b) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT (200…

M/S Surajmal Cemorial Education Society, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2136/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ved by it, then it was not the requirement of law that the A.O. will 25 have to issue notices u/s 131 of the Act necessarily to each of the donors. For this proposition he relied on the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Bahri Brothers reported in 154 ITR 244. He further argued that the source of acquisition of land was verifiable from the registered sale deed filed by the assessee and was also verifiable from the audited accounts of the assessee as also the bank accounts and books of accounts which were duly produced and examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings…

Parmanand K Hinduja, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1049/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1049/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Parmanand K. Hinduja, Asst. Comm. Of Income बनाम/ 402, Banswani Tower, Tax – Circle – 2, V. Near Corporation Bank, Mohan Plaza, Ist Floor, Municipal Road, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan (West). Dist. Thane – 401003. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacph9702N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…i) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) ii) CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Ltd. , 100 ITR 360 (Mad.) iii) Addl. CIT v. Hanuman Agarwal, 151 ITR 150 (Patna) iv) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, 103 ITR 344 v) Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros (P) Ltd., 154 ITR 244 (Patna) vi) Bhadarmal Hajarimal v. ITO, 5TTJ 297 vii) ITO v. Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrigeration Company,19 TTJ 467 viii) ITO v. Sikkanthan Stores, 7 TTJ 294 (Mad.) ix) Champaklal Dhamanwala HUF v. ITO, 34 ITD 209 (Ahm.) x) Atmaram J. Manghirmalani HUF v. ITO, 67 ITD 289 (Mum) xi) J.S. Hastimal v. CIT, 49 ITR 273 (Madras) xii) Rohini Builder…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Kaushalendra Agarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2749/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms Richa Rastogi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…that the AO was not justified in making the addition by doubting 5 ITA No.2749/Del./2012 the balances outstanding in the names of parties from whom the purchases were made. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i). ACIT vs. Bahri Bros. Pvt. Ltd. 154 ITR 244 (Pat) (ii). Mather Platt (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 493 (Cal.) (iii). CIT vs. Pancham Das Jain 205 CTR 444 (All.) (iv). Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjarpole vs. DIT (Exemptions) 26 DTR 113 (Bombay) (v). CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal reported in (2012) DTLONLINE 134 (Del.) (vi) ITO vs. Zazsons Exports Ltd. 153 ITD 1 (Lko-TM) (vii). CIT vs. M/s Niku…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

ITTA/125/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN