(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.

103 Taxmann.com 48Supreme Court of India2019#76 most cited

What is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. authority for?

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

696

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,887 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

NRA Iron & Steel · (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel · Section 68 · cash credit · share capital · share application money · unexplained loan · onus of proof · creditworthiness · genuineness of transaction · paper company · shell company · accommodation entries

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.

Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2286/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"यएवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [PAN: AABCR2034B] vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. S…

Manish Bachubhai Dani, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 873/MUM/2023[20122-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanmanish Bachubai Dani Nfac, No-245-A, 702, Prakash Tower, North Block, बनाम/ Opp Raja Hotel, New Delhi, Vs. Shankarrao Chowk, Delhi-110001. Kalyan(W)- 421301, Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabhm0031L (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) Ito, Ward 3(2), Manish Bachubai 2Ndfloor,Ranimansion, Dani बनाम/ Murbad Road, 702, Prakash Tower, Vs. Kalyan(W)-421301, Opp Raja Hotel, Maharashtra. Shankarrao Chowk, Kalyan(W)- 421301, Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabhm0031L (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…r analysis and enquired into the genuineness of the alleged transaction. We place our reliance for this proposition on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). In the present case in hand the assessment order is flawed by lack of enquiry by the AO. 6. From the above observation and by respectfully following the decision cited above, we hereby direct to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. We find that the share transaction…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gemini Commerce, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), M/S. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 8A, Brown Field Row Kolkata - 700027 [Pan : Aadcg0842J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 21/09/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Six (6) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Revenue Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,61,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Sale Of Unquoted Shares In The Course Of

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…d as such identity, creditworthiness of the Purchaser Company and genuineness of transactions could not be verified. 5. The principle which has been laid down by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT [Central]-1, Kol. Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [412 ITR 161] also is duty bound to suggests that the Assessing Officer investigate the creditworthiness of the subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers and ascertain whether the transaction is genuine or these are bogus entries of name lenders. In the facts of the case, in spite of best efforts made by the assessing officer, he could not verify the…

Agroha Capital Services Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, War4D-1(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1143/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Agroha Capital Services Ltd., Vs. Ito, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Cas, Ward-1(4), L-7A (Lgf), South Extn. Part Ii, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaaca9515B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca & Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Dated 11.01.2018, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative (Ar) Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Want To Press Grounds No.1 & 2, Hence, The Same Are Dismissed As ‘Not Pressed.’

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(1)Section 133(6)Section 153Section 68

…KUMAR GUPTA 131 TTJ (DEL.) (UO) 92; & v) CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) (121-145/RP-140) 7. The ld. AR submitted that the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., reported as 412 ITR 161 (SC) is not applicable to the present case as, in the present case, the copy of assessment order passed u/s 153C/153A in the case of investor M/s Virgin Capital Services (P) Ltd. for AY 2009-10, no addition has been made and books of account of the assessee as well as the return of income has been accepted by the AO which clearly shows that the A…

Karishma Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalekarishma Ajay Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward – 21(2)(1) 218A/219, Shah Nahar Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Bk M.K.Road, Kher Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. : Agapa3857D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singhanand.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghAnand.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r analysis and enquired into the genuineness of the alleged transaction. We place our reliance for this proposition on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Private Limited (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). In the present case in hand the assessment order is flawed by lack of enquiry by the AO. 6. From the above observation and by respectfully following the decision cited above, we hereby direct to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. 9. The Ld. AR contentions are that the assessee name nor the company shares traded were never in the i…