CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd.

230 ITR 580Supreme Court of India1998#2706 most cited

What is CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee provides a prima facie probable explanation for a cash credit or unexplained entry, the onus shifts to the revenue to disprove it, and the assessee’s explanation cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Additionally, rejection of books of account under section 145(3) is not an absolute prerequisite for making additions under section 68.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. · 230 ITR 580 · Section 68 · Section 145(3) · onus of proof · unexplained cash credit · assessee's explanation · shifting of onus · rejection of books · prima facie probable explanation · mere surmises · disprove explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)(d)onus of proofpaper companyaudi alteram partemretracted statementcreditworthiness of the creditoradmission of additional evidenceaddition u/s 68addition under section 68section 251share application moneyaccommodation entry

Judgments citing CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd.

Ambereen Kabir Dharamsey, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5028/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Ambereen Kabir Dharmsey, Flat Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Colombia St. Domnicroad, Ward-19(3)(1), Parimal Bandra West, Mumbai 400 050 Chambers, Parel, Pan:Aabpd0647D Mumbai 400 012 .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Keshav B. Bhujle, Ar Respondent By .. Sri A. Ramachandran, Sr. Dr .. Date Of Hearing 17-10-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 02 -11- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…ineness of the transactions of purchase and sale of shares. The Department has not brought any evidence to show that the transactions are not genuine. In Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 144 ITR 352 (Kar);confirmed by Supreme Court in CIT Vs. BEdi & Co. Pvt. Ltd.; 230 ITR 580 (SC) it is held that the burden of showing that the apparent state of affairs is not the real one was very heavy on the Department. In the instant case, mere statement of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi is not sufficient to meet this heavy burden. It may at the most be a case of suspicion and nothing more.” 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone thro…

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

…AT Ahd. Bench xiv) Micro land v. ACIT 67 ITD 446 (Bangalore) xv) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) xvi) Kalwa Devadettam v. Union of India, 49 ITR 165 (SC) xvii) ACIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) xviii) CIT v. Bedi & Company Pvt. Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC) xix) Kirloskar Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, 67 ITD 504 xx) ACIT v. Govindram Agarwal, 76 ITD 120 (Calcutta) xxi) Mola Bux v. ITO, 51 TTJ 1 (JP) xxii) CIT v. Hiralal Chgagan Lal Tank, 257 ITR 281 (Rajasthan) xxiii) Murlidhar Lahornimal v. CIT, 280 ITR 512 (Gujarat) The assessee submitted that the identity , capacity and genuineness…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S D.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…dition made on this count. Reference in this regard can be made the decisions in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 7 (SC) and CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima-facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the A…