(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 371,886 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

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 10(38)Section 148Section 69CSection 131Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus share capitalbogus long term capital gainonus of proofpenny stockpaper companypreponderance of probabilitycreditworthiness of the creditorsection 10(38)bogus ltcgshell companysource of source

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

M/S. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 1195/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

…oned. The appellant's case was reopened on 10.01.2023, after the date of search, and the CIT(A) upheld the AO'S decision to reopen the assessment due to the deeming fiction set out in Explanation 2 to sec. 148. In Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd., (2020) 11 SCC 312, the Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment subsequent to a search and seizure operation under Section 132. The court analyzed the scope of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and found that the AO had the power to reopen the case based on the deeming fiction set out in the provision. After hearing the riv…

M/S. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 1194/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

…oned. The appellant's case was reopened on 10.01.2023, after the date of search, and the CIT(A) upheld the AO'S decision to reopen the assessment due to the deeming fiction set out in Explanation 2 to sec. 148. In Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd., (2020) 11 SCC 312, the Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment subsequent to a search and seizure operation under Section 132. The court analyzed the scope of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and found that the AO had the power to reopen the case based on the deeming fiction set out in the provision. After hearing the riv…

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 594/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…e AO was only submitted by the assessee and none of these details came from any of these share applicants. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the following findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC): - ITA No.594/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2012-13) 11 “11. The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are : i. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to mak…

Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2195/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2195/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o. Divyang Shah & Co., Ward-4(2)(3), Chartered Accountant, 201, Ahmedabad Devashish Complex, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN No.ADPPD4435N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Divyang Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR 10.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA…

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…the loan creditors and the onus lies upon the assessee was not discharged. He thus prayed for the confirmation of the additions made. Reliance is placed on the judgment of hon’ble Supreme court in the case of PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161 (SC). 9. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, it is seen that assessee has filed all the relevant details of the loan creditors and discharged the onus lies upon him which includes affidavits wherein the loan creditors have duly confirmed the loan given to the assessee, copy of…

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1260/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…uiry carried out by the AO under s. 133(6) was also noticed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, declined to grant relief to the assessee mainly in the light of judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 9.1. It is evident from the record that the assessee, on its part, has filed clinching documentary evidences to support the source of loan received. No legal obligation is prescribed upon the assessee in law to prove the creditworthiness of ‘source of source’ of receipts obtained by the assessee in view o…

Diamond Realcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1259/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…uiry carried out by the AO under s. 133(6) was also noticed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, declined to grant relief to the assessee mainly in the light of judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 9.1. It is evident from the record that the assessee, on its part, has filed clinching documentary evidences to support the source of loan received. No legal obligation is prescribed upon the assessee in law to prove the creditworthiness of ‘source of source’ of receipts obtained by the assessee in view o…

Sumitra Surendra Gadodia, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(3)(4), Bandra, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 10(26)Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 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 in…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Royal Touch Fablon Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/132/2025HC Calcutta03 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…rcumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law by not 3 considering the principle which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) (2020) 117 taxmann.com 752 (SC) ? h) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law by not considering the principle which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) ? i) WHETHER in facts and in the circum…

Yashwant Raj Lalchand Bamboli, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4373/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankaryashwant Raj Lalchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bamboli बनाम 27(3)(5), 4Th Floor, Tower 7, Trimurti Building, 105-A, No. 6, Vashi Station N.G. Acharaya Marg, Complex, Mumbai –400703, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpb5149A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr.DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Yashwant Raj Lalchand v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bamboli बनाम 27(3)(5), 4th Floor, Tower 7, Trimurti Building, 105-A, No. 6, Vashi Station N.G. Acharaya Marg, Complex, Mumbai –400703, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AIJPB5149A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala,AR Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing 07.10.2025 Date of Pronoun…

Viraj Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1084/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Viraj Software Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-26(4), 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccv5229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Viraj Software Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-26(4), 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCV5229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.12.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre…

Rajesh Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 47(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Rajesh Kapoor, Vs. ACIT, 4067, Naya Bazar, Circle-47(1), Delhi-06 New Delhi PAN: AAMPK0063B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ramesh Goel, CA Sh. Ratan Lal Goel, Adv. Department by Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 01.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 01.12.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 [in short…

Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Nashik

ITA 814/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through virtual)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.813/PUN/2018 Assessment year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (HUF) 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik - 422007 PAN: AACHD5953R (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nashik (Respondent) ITA No.814/PUN/2018 Assessment year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik - 422007 PAN: ACKPT1322Q (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nashik (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through…

Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (HUF), Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 813/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through virtual)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (HUF) ITO, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 PAN: AACHD5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan ITO, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 PAN: ACKPT1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through virtual) Date of hearing : 29-10-202…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. M/S. Indic Wisdom Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…from the subscribers. The AO has merely presumed lack of creditworthiness based on ITRs or temporary bank inflows, without discharging the onus shifted onto the Department once the assessee provided prima facie evidence. 6.6 In PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC), it was held that once the assessee provides basic evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the burden shifts to the AO to make independent inquiry. In this case, no such inquiry or report has been conducted or provided—even during the remand opportunity. 6.7 Additionally, the DCF-based valuation by a merchant b…

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ;ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…uiry carried out by the AO under s. 133(6) was also noticed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, declined to grant relief to the assessee mainly in the light of judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). 9.1. It is evident from the record that the assessee, on its part, has filed clinching documentary evidences to support the source of loan received. No legal obligation is prescribed upon the assessee in law to prove the creditworthiness of ‘source of source’ of receipts obtained by the assessee in view of firstly, the prospective insertion…

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1268/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…uiry carried out by the AO under s. 133(6) was also noticed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, declined to grant relief to the assessee mainly in the light of judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). 9.1. It is evident from the record that the assessee, on its part, has filed clinching documentary evidences to support the source of loan received. No legal obligation is prescribed upon the assessee in law to prove the creditworthiness of ‘source of source’ of receipts obtained by the assessee in view of firstly, the prospective insertion…

Delight Propcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…uiry carried out by the AO under s. 133(6) was also noticed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, declined to grant relief to the assessee mainly in the light of judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). 9.1. It is evident from the record that the assessee, on its part, has filed clinching documentary evidences to support the source of loan received. No legal obligation is prescribed upon the assessee in law to prove the creditworthiness of ‘source of source’ of receipts obtained by the assessee in view of firstly, the prospective insertion…

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Gold Spice Impex, vs. ITO, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAPFG0688P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1556/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he company's Director or any representatives of the entities appeared before the AO to explain the transactions. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron and steel Pvt Ltd., reported in 412 ITR 161 (SC) dated 5th March, 2019 treated the sale of investments by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and, accordingly, made an addition of Rs.7,33,50,000/- to the income of the in the assessment year 2016-17. In the same assessment order, the AO discussed the facts and additions made in respect of other assessment years i.e. 20…