How many judgments cite CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction (83 ITR 187), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 153A, Section 250(6).

CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction

83 ITR 187Supreme Court of India1972#2804 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 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 68 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 153A Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(C)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

cash credit addition section 153a proceedings bogus share capital retraction of statement principal officer statement under section 132(4)retracted statement summons under section 131 section 292c addition under section 68 on-money share application money

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction

Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata 2 & Anr

The appeal is allowed and the stay

ITAT/328/2017HC Calcutta04 May 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…on the issue of share capital/premium when no addition u/s 68 can be made in the instant case in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports 319 ITR (St.) and also in the case of Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. 83 ITR 187. 7. For that in exercising revisionary powers u/s 263 the Ld. CIT lost sight of the well settled legal position that in the assessment u/s 147, the A.O. is not entitled to embark upon a fishing expedition and to make roving enquiries as such, assuming but not admitting that proper enquiries were not done in respect of the share capital raised by t…

Rajesh Prasad, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5353/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Pramod Kumar Vs. Dcit 13/34, W.E.A. Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi-110 005 New Delhi Pan : Aljpk 6448 A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Rajesh Prasad Vs. Dcit 13/34, W.E.A Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi Pan : Aalpr 2566 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri B. P. Gupta, Adv. Shri Arnav Kumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Pramod Kumar Vs. DCIT 13/34, W.E.A. Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi-110 005 New Delhi PAN : ALJPK 6448 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) And Rajesh Prasad Vs. DCIT 13/34, W.E.A Karol Bagh Central Circle – 4 New Delhi – 110 005 New Delhi PAN : AALPR 2566 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri B. P. Gupta, Adv. Shri Arnav Kumar, Adv. Revenue by Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 07.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: These…

Pramod Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5352/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

M/S Everfine Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3129/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d hence, by any stretch of imagination, there is no possibility for the assessee to generate unaccounted income. In support of this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC) and that followed in the case of Surendra Prasad Misra v. ITO [2006] 7 SOT 457 by the Hon’ble Lucknow ITAT. 10.6 The ld. Counsel further submits that the whole addition has been made on surmises and conjectures in absence of any adverse material found during the course of search / survey to establish that the alleged investment has been done…

M/S Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 2106/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ncial year after Incorporation of the Assessee-Company, therefore, there were no justification to held that assessee received unexplained share application money. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Bharat Engineering And Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 [SC) held as under : 48 ITA.No.2106/Del./2013 Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., [Formerly known as M/s. Shalom Exim (P) Ltd., and then as Mamram Developers P. Ltd.,] Delhi. “The assessee, an engineering-construction company, commenced its business in May, 1943. In its accounts there were several cash credit entries in the first year of…

Jayashree Anand Enterprises, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1372/HYD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2020AY 1998-99

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 1998-99 Jayashree Anand Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – Enterprises, Hyderabad. 11(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaefj9509K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Djp Anand Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri DJP Anand

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 69

…ss, it cannot be said that it has unexplained income to make the unexplained investment. For this proposition, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction Co., 83 ITR 187, wherein it was held that where the business had not commenced or just commenced, the assessee therein it could not have earned any income within a short period after such commencement. Another decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ernakulam Vs. P.K. Noorjahan, rep…

Pramod Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 6355/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Anunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 68

…as an income and, therefore, addition on account of cash deposit could not be made as unexplained case 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). 4. 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 deposit and total amount of cash deposit could no…

Rajesh Prasad, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 6354/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Anunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 68

Lakshya Educational Trust, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4128/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

…t of activities. The AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abhudaya Pharmaceuticals vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 358 (All) and Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Company (1972) 83 ITR 187. The detailed submission has been reproduced as above. 12. The facts of the case on the above issues have been gone in detail with the material on record. On going through the documents furnished by the appellant in respect of Attol Vyapaar P. Ltd. it is noted that the appellant has received loan of Rs.30 lac on 4th/9th March, 2010 on which no int…

Svk Projects, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Svk Projects, Hyderabad. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Hyderabad Pan – Abkfs5435Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri

Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ere already explained, hence, there is no possibility of making any addition in the assessee’s hand. He relied on the following decisions: a) ITO Vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor [2011] 16 Taxman.com 373 (Amritsar) b) CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 7. Ld. DR relied on the orders of AO/CIT(A). 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice from the records submitted before us that in the case of Mr. D.V. Krishna Reddy, who is the partner in the assessee firm, in whose hands the additions were made for making investment in the partnership firm M/s SVK Sri Sit…

B. Venkateshwar Rao, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1020/HYD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blebaruma Venkateshwar Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(4), 1-105, Jeedimetla Post, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No. Aojpb 8933 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao – AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Niju Gupta – DR

Section 142(1)Section 2(14)(III)Section 69Section 69A

…herefore, whatever amount deposited in the bank account has to considered as it relates to agricultural income. He also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt.P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570) and CIT vs Bharat Engineering (83 ITR 187). 7. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. (Baruma Venkateshwar Rao) 9. In this case, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent…

Wood Craft Exports Co. Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3802/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Pratiyush Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 68

…sessee-company is 100% EOU and all the trading results and sales were found correct, therefore, there is no question of introducing own money. He has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC) in which it was held as under : 9 ITA.No.3802/Del./2017 Woodcraft Export Co. Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur, U.P. “The assessee, an engineering-construction company, commenced its business in May, 1943. In its accounts there were several cash credit entries in the first year of its business totalling Rs.2,50,000. Though the explanation regarding the…

Arjun Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Firozabad vs. I.T.O.-5(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 290/AGR/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 68

…e light of its peculiar facts. 7. Heard. The ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue, has observed as follows: “6.2 As regards the assessee’s reliance in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Company 83 ITR 187 (SC) wherein it has been held that the amounts received were before the commencement of assessee’s business and hence they cannot be added as assessee’s business income, with respect to the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in my humble view and while keeping in view the catena of case laws that have 5 been rendered in respect of addition…

M/S Beatle Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr. C.I.T. - 4, Kolkata

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

ITA 1395/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1395/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Beatle Trading (P) Ltd. -Vs- Pr. Cit-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aaecb 3708 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…um raised as income u/s 68, when no addition under section 68 can be made in the instant case in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export 319 ITR (St.) 5 and also in the case of Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. 83 ITR 187. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have considered that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was passed after proper inquiry or investigation on the issue of share capital. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in holding th…

Pramod Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5351/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Anunav Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 148Section 68

…of cash deposits could not be made as undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act in the case of the appellant in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Smt. PK Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT vs. Bharat Engineers & Construction Co. 83 ITR 187 (SC). 4. That the CIT(A) also erred in not adjudicating the appeal following the order of this Tribunal dated 18.10.2013 passed in the cases of Tarun Goyal Group in accordance with which holistic view is to be taken considering the group as a whole and only the commission income is to be assessed in respect of cash received and deposited in bank a…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…uch more than to the investment made in assessee company. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT Vs Bharat Engineering and Construction Co. (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC) 5. The ld. AO by doubting the creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital/share premium in above paras issued a show cause notice dated 06.02.2015 (copy at PB Page 37 to 40) to the assessee for treating the share capital/premium as income of the assessee on the following grounds: - a) Share premium/Share capital paid by investor c…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sagavi Housing & Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1131/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Sagavi Housing & Developers Ward 22(2), Vs. Pvt, Ltd., New Delhi Q-1C, F.F. Private Colony Sri Room No. 349, Niwas Puri, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 110 065 New Delhi (Pan: Aafcs5780B) (Pan: Aafcs5780B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. SANDEEP SAPRA, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 148Section 68

…t is to be added it should be added in the hand of directors because only they can take the entry by giving the cash from their pockets. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Engineering Construction Co. 83 ITR 187. The Hon'ble Lordships had accepted the findings of the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal that the cash credit entries cannot be treated as income of the appellant as undisclosed income because company has not yet started any business activity. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. Grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are…

M/S. Mehta Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1633/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 68Section 69C

…ct. 4.1 That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) also failed to discuss and appreciate the contention of the appellant in this regard as also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. - (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC) and CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan - (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied upon by the appellant. 5 That on facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO without fully appreciating the facts and contention of the appellant and therefore the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law. 2. The brief facts of the case are that…

Yamuna Alloys Ltd., Saharanpur vs. ACIT, Saharanpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3393/DEL/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoyamuna Alloys Ltd., Acit, 44, Mission Compound, Saharanpur Vs. Saharanpur, Pan:Aaacy0479Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

Section 68

…the AO has not assessed any business income and only addition was made in the assessment order u/s. 68 of the IT Act for unexplained cash credits in a sum of Rs.48,00,000/-. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction Co., 83 ITR 187 held – “The assessee, an engineering-construction company, commenced its business in May, 1943. In its accounts there were several cash credit entries in the first year of its business totaling Rs.2,50,000. Though the explanation regarding the cash credit entries was found to be false, the Appellate Tribunal held that these cash credits could not…

Riddhi Promoters Pvt.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-7

ITA-227/2015HC Delhi27 Mar 2015

Section 143(1)Section 68

…sum of Rs.24 lakhs in fact emanated from the directors of the share applicants, it could not be said that requirement of Section 68 of the Act is not discharged. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction 83 ITR 187, especially the following observations: 2. The assessee-company is an engineering construction company. It commenced business in May, 1943. In their account books, there are several cash credit entries in the first year of its business. We are concerned with only five of those cash credit entries. On June 1, 1943, there is a cash credit entr…