C1T Vs, Chandravilas Hotel (Gujarat) 164 ITR 102 and CIT v. Modi Stone Ltd. (Delhi)

203 Taxmann 123Reported decision#5458 most cited

What is C1T Vs, Chandravilas Hotel (Gujarat) 164 ITR 102 and CIT v. Modi Stone Ltd. (Delhi) authority for?

The production of vouchers alone does not prove the genuineness of an expenditure claim; the assessee has the burden to prove payment, especially when its authenticity is questioned.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chandravilas Hotel · CIT v. Modi Stone Ltd. · 203 Taxmann 123 · proof of payment · genuineness of expenditure · burden of proof · accommodation entry · section 69C · section 68 · suspicious dealers

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysatisfaction noteaccommodation entrysection 69csection 133asection 153cincriminating materialsection 153section 68section 15transfersection 143

Judgments citing C1T Vs, Chandravilas Hotel (Gujarat) 164 ITR 102 and CIT v. Modi Stone Ltd. (Delhi)

Bharat Copy Centre P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…ment given by them before the sales tax authorities has been corroborated. The AO placed reliance on the decision rendered by Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (164 ITR 102) and Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Modi Stone Ltd (203 Taxmann 123) to take the view that mere production of vouchers in support of claim for deduction of expenditure would not prove the claim of the assessee. It is the duty of the assessee to prove payment especially when the genuineness is doubted. Accordingly he disallowed the purchases made from the suspicious dealers in all the three years as detailed b…