CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction

83 ITR 187Supreme Court of India1972#2808 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction authority for?

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits cannot be made if the assessee has not commenced its business operations.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction · 83 ITR 187 · Section 68 · cash credit addition · unexplained cash credit · commencement of business · no business commenced · applicability of Section 68 · Supreme Court · addition for cash credit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 131Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(C)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

cash credit additionsection 153a proceedingsbogus share capitalretraction of statementprincipal officerstatement under section 132(4)retracted statementsummons under section 131section 292caddition under section 68on-moneyshare application money

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction

G K CONSTRUCTIONS.CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1608/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1608/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 G K Constructions Co. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Vs. Ward-8(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aapfg7527F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69

…Authorised Representative of the Assessee has relied upon various decisions which are as under : 1. Nova Medicare vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 150 taxmann.com 363 (Telangana); 8 ITA.No.1608/Hyd./2025 2. CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC); 3. CIT, Kanpur vs. Lal Mohar [2017] 88 taxmann.com 260 (Allahabad); 4. Satty and Associates Hyd vs. ACIT CC-1(2), Hyd. [2025] 170 taxmarin.com-432 (Hyderabad-Trib); 5. CIT vs. M. Venkateswara Rao [2015] 57 taxmann.com 373 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana); 6. CTT-1, Patna vs. Anurag Rice Mills [2017] 88 taxmann.com 420 (Patna); 7. CIT, Rajkot-I…

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S. UNITED FARM PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 69C

…hich proves that no busienss activity was done during the year, hence no business revenue was earned by the appellant company. Reliance has been placed on the case laws : - Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Company 83 ITR 187 - Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lal Mohar & Others (2018) 252 Taxman 401 (All). 8 - Hon’ble Agra ITAT in case of DCIT vs. M/s. Surajmal Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.345/Agr/2009 - In Sugandhi Cold Storeage (P) Ltd. vs. Dept of Income Tax in ITA No.368/Agra/ 2010 dated 20.04.2012 - Same view was also endorsed in b) ITAT A…

MALLYA REAL ESTATES P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…e findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not commenced its business and where no business has commenced, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions:\n(i) CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction Com 83 ITR 187 [SC]\n(ii) CIT Vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance 141 ITR 706 [Ahd]\n(iii) DCIT Vs. Esteem Towers Pvt Ltd 99 TTJ 472 [Del]\n(iv) Mitesh Rolling Mills Vs. CIT 258 ITR 278.\n\n8. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the balance sheet shows liability of Rs 1,40,10,000/- against the name of M/s Sushil Enterprises and Rs.38,19,700/- against the name of…

NEPRA ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTINS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1683/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
Section 131Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ued that the AO cannot replace the method of valuation arbitrarily.\n7. 1. The AR placed reliance on the following judicial precedents:\n- Mitesh Rolling Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 278 (Guj.).\n- CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC).\n- CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. (Delhi HC) [ITA No: 71/2015,\n72/2015 & 84/2015].\n- Arjun Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No. 290/Agra/2016].\n- DCIT vs. JWL Cold Store Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) ITA No:\n3098/MUM/2023.\n- ITO vs. Surana Metcast (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Ahmedabad ITAT) ITA No:\n2339/AHD/2018.\n- PCIT vs. I A Hydro Energy (P)…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. VEENA GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 6474/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153ASection 3

…raised multiple arguments i.e. the impugned addition is not sustainable in law as the assessee had not commenced with its business as this sum could not have been treated as its unexplained cash credit as per CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC), no opening balance credit has been granted by the lower authorities’ the very amount has already stands assessed in group entities, no telescopic opening has been granted and that the same 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.3105 & 3106/Del/2014; 5205 & 5547/Del/2014; 6258 & 6474/Del/2014 has been wrongly sustained in its hands despite the fact that it…

MRS. VEENA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6258/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153ASection 3

…raised multiple arguments i.e. the impugned addition is not sustainable in law as the assessee had not commenced with its business as this sum could not have been treated as its unexplained cash credit as per CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC), no opening balance credit has been granted by the lower authorities’ the very amount has already stands assessed in group entities, no telescopic opening has been granted and that the same 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.3105 & 3106/Del/2014; 5205 & 5547/Del/2014; 6258 & 6474/Del/2014 has been wrongly sustained in its hands despite the fact that it…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. MADHU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 5547/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153ASection 3

…raised multiple arguments i.e. the impugned addition is not sustainable in law as the assessee had not commenced with its business as this sum could not have been treated as its unexplained cash credit as per CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC), no opening balance credit has been granted by the lower authorities’ the very amount has already stands assessed in group entities, no telescopic opening has been granted and that the same 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.3105 & 3106/Del/2014; 5205 & 5547/Del/2014; 6258 & 6474/Del/2014 has been wrongly sustained in its hands despite the fact that it…

MS. MADHU GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5205/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153ASection 3

…raised multiple arguments i.e. the impugned addition is not sustainable in law as the assessee had not commenced with its business as this sum could not have been treated as its unexplained cash credit as per CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC), no opening balance credit has been granted by the lower authorities’ the very amount has already stands assessed in group entities, no telescopic opening has been granted and that the same 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.3105 & 3106/Del/2014; 5205 & 5547/Del/2014; 6258 & 6474/Del/2014 has been wrongly sustained in its hands despite the fact that it…

M/S. CLASSIC LAMPS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3106/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153ASection 3

…raised multiple arguments i.e. the impugned addition is not sustainable in law as the assessee had not commenced with its business as this sum could not have been treated as its unexplained cash credit as per CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC), no opening balance credit has been granted by the lower authorities’ the very amount has already stands assessed in group entities, no telescopic opening has been granted and that the same 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.3105 & 3106/Del/2014; 5205 & 5547/Del/2014; 6258 & 6474/Del/2014 has been wrongly sustained in its hands despite the fact that it…

M/S. CLASSIC LAMPS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3105/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153ASection 3

…raised multiple arguments i.e. the impugned addition is not sustainable in law as the assessee had not commenced with its business as this sum could not have been treated as its unexplained cash credit as per CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC), no opening balance credit has been granted by the lower authorities’ the very amount has already stands assessed in group entities, no telescopic opening has been granted and that the same 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.3105 & 3106/Del/2014; 5205 & 5547/Del/2014; 6258 & 6474/Del/2014 has been wrongly sustained in its hands despite the fact that it…

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…could not have been attributed to the firm. If at all the said addition was to be made, the same could have been made in the hands of the partners and not the firm. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:- 107 ITR 938 page (S.C.) 1. 2. 83 ITR 187 page (S.C.) The Ld. CIT(A) has held as follows: “8. The rival submissions have been carefully considered with reference to the facts of the case. It is noted that in continuation of the findings dealt with in ground 5 above, the Id. A.O. further discovered the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs in account No. 396 with UCO Bank, Ogli. The ap…

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

…could not have been attributed to the firm. If at all the said addition was to be made, the same could have been made in the hands of the partners and not the firm. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:- 107 ITR 938 page (S.C.) 1. 2. 83 ITR 187 page (S.C.) The Ld. CIT(A) has held as follows: “8. The rival submissions have been carefully considered with reference to the facts of the case. It is noted that in continuation of the findings dealt with in ground 5 above, the Id. A.O. further discovered the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs in account No. 396 with UCO Bank, Ogli. The ap…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. M/S. SAFAL HOMES, AHMEDABAD

ITA 90/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cannot be sustained in absence of existence of undisclosed income. The view is supported by the following decisions (Para 4.19 of the order): (i) Honourable Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187. (ii) Honourable Lucknow Tribunal in case of Surendra Prasad Mishra Vs. Income Tax officer [2006] 7 SOT 457. (g) It is observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, appellant has asked AO to provide cross examination of third party whose statement was relied upon which was denied by Assessing ITA No.90/Ahd/2021 (By Revenue) & Cross O…

PRAMOD KUMAR ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 474/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

…an income and, therefore, addition on account of cash deposited could not be made as unexplained cash credit in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Bharat Engineers & Construction Co. 83 ITR 187 (SC). 6. That the CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating that since in certain other cases of Tarun Goyal Group, only the commission has been considered in respect of all credit entries, in the case of the Appellant also only the commission income could be determined with reference to amount of cash deposited and total amount of cash u/s 68 of the…

PRAMOD KUMAR ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 473/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

…an income and, therefore, addition on account of cash deposited could not be made as unexplained cash credit in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Bharat Engineers & Construction Co. 83 ITR 187 (SC). 6. That the CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating that since in certain other cases of Tarun Goyal Group, only the commission has been considered in respect of all credit entries, in the case of the Appellant also only the commission income could be determined with reference to amount of cash deposited and total amount of cash u/s 68 of the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DEEPSONS SOUTHENED

ITA/1008/2018HC Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…hed and was accepted without making any additions. On this score, Ld. CITCA) vide paragraph No.5.6 of his order, held that the addition has to be deleted. Further, in view of the decisions reported in India Rice Mills 218 ITR 508 (All.), Bharat Engineering 83 ITR 187 (SC), and P. Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) introduction of capital by partners credited in the firm's accounts is not taxable in the hands of the firm, particularly when the amounts so credited were prior to the commencement of firm's business. Further, in respect of the discrepancies in loans, the Ld. CIT(A), on verification of record found tha…

ITO, WD.-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S TARGET DEALERS PVT. LTD , KOLKATA

ITA 39/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn, (P.) Ltd. reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), Lovely Export (P) Ltd. reported in 319 ITR (St.) 5 (SC) and also in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. reported in [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC). Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions filed by the assessee and also examining the financials of the cash creditors deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. AO and further, stated that all the alleged share subscr…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Pritham and Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. PAN : AAHCP6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (in ITA 97/Hyd/2019) M/s. Pritham and Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. PAN : AAHCP6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue by:…

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…made and if they failed to do so, amount could be added in their hands only and not in the hands of the assessee- firm”. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal that though assessee’s explanation in respect of cash credit P a g e 5 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17 entries found in their accounts was not true, those entries could not represent income or profits of assessee-company as they were all made very soon after company comm…

M/S. LEOPARD VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,VILLAGE MATEL, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: 12/05/2022
Section 143(3)Section 263

…1(M/s. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 9 - regarded as undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act. In support of his contention, assessee relied on following pronouncements: • Supreme Court in case of Bharat engineering & Construction Co. -83 ITR 187, • Supreme Court in case of P. K. Noorjahan- 237 ITR 570, • Gujarat High Court in case of Mitesh Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd. - 258 ITR 278, • Gujarat High Court in case of Green Finance Ltd. -judgment dated 10.11.2014 in Tax Appeal No. 67-68 of 2001, • Delhi High Court in case of Five Vision Promoters Pvt Ltd. - 380 ITR 289, • Ahmedabad ITAT in case of…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction (83 ITR 187) — Cited in 42 Judgments | BharatTax