CIT v. Biju Patnaik

160 ITR 674Supreme Court of India1986#2499 most cited

What is CIT v. Biju Patnaik authority for?

For any cash credit under Section 68, the assessee must discharge their primary onus by proving the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness to advance the money, and the genuineness of the transaction. Only after this primary onus is discharged does the burden of proof shift to the Revenue.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Biju Patnaik · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained credit · onus of proof · identity creditworthiness genuineness · burden of proof shifts · share application money · genuineness of transaction · accommodation entries

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 131Section 69Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

paper companyshare capital and share premiumbogus ltcgsource of sourceaddition under section 68creditworthiness of the creditorshare application moneypenny stockaddition u/s 68entry operatorgenuineness of the transactionfair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Biju Patnaik

Kemox Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 221/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 142Section 250Section 68

…heir financial statement, then only burden shifts to the department. For this proposition the reliance is placed on following decisions: Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta). Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC). CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC). CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta). Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP). Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Тахтап 481 (Kerela). 12.1 The appellant is heavily relying on the documents such as copy of ITR, financial statement, bank statement, etc. filed by him during the assessment proceedings. In this conn…

Luminant Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 68

…so be made to the decision in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) and CIT vs. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674. (SC) and CIT vs. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674. 3.4 Over the recent years there has been some doubt with regard to 3.4 Over the recent years there has been some doubt with regard to 3.4 Over the recent years there has been some doubt with regard to the nature of the duty cast the nature of the duty cast on the Revenue in the face of inadequate…

Mohan Dagadu Chougale, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1312/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ve three ingredients, then only burden shifts to the department. For this proposition the reliance is placed on following decisions: * Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta) * Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC) * CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) * CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) * Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) * Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Taxman 481 (Kerela) 32. The facts of the present case clearly suggest that the appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus of proving the capacity of creditors to advance money and genuinen…

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…conviction about the explanation of the assessee. Loan amount was rightly held as assessee's own undisclosed income. 8.21 In the cases of Shankar Industries Vs CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Hari Chand Virender Paul Vs CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148, CIT Vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 CIT Vs Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465 Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780 and in the case of Sanil K.M.P. Vs CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of credit-mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient - Addition under Section 68 uphel…

Dy. Commmissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Prasad Shetty, Sion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

…xports (Supra.), whereas it is known that the above judgment has been challenged time and again and various judicial precedents such as Shankar Industries vs CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Hari Chand Virender Paul vs CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148 and CIT vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 have been ruled in favor of the revenue?. 4. In case of Mangilal Jain vs ITO (MAD) 315 ITR 105 and CIT us Precision Finance (P) Ltd. 208 ITR 465 the Hon'ble Courts have reiterated that "Assessee must prove identity of credits, capacity of creditor to advance money and genuineness of transaction." And as such the addition made by the AO was justif…

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…. CIT V. Som Nath Mani (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vi) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (viii) CIT V. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala & Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) 2.40 The Ld. AO has recorded as under in the assessment order dated 31/12/2016: After going through the whole gamut of Purchase and Sale of Shares, it can safely be understood that the Transactions of Purchase and Sale of Shares and earning of Long Term Capital Gains are not Genuine…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…of India) 35-43 9. Shankar Industries vs. CIT[1978] 114 ITR 689(High Court of Calcutta) 44-47 10. Hari Chand Virendra Pal Vs. CIT (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) [1982]11 48-50 Taxman 134 /140 ITR 148 11. CIT vs. Biju Patnaik[1986]26 Taxman 324 (SC)/[1986] 160 ITR 674(SC) 51-59 12. Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs.CIT, 93 Taxman 561/ 228 ITR 780(High 60-63 Court of Andhra Pradesh) 13. Sanil K.M.P vs. CIT [2009] 177 Taxman 481(Kerala)[04.06.2008] 64-65 22 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Paradise Properties In view of the above submissions, it is requested that appeal may kindly be decid…

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaymala Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 68

…s: source. He referred to following decisions: (i) Hon’ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income v. (i) Hon’ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income v. (i) Hon’ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ii) Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of ordinate Bench of the ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of ordinate Bench of the ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of M/s Gaurav Pigments Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Gaurav Pigments Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Aditya Trading Solutions Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 843/CHNY/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 843/Chny/2022 & Co No.: 17/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aditya Trading Solutions Income Tax, V. Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), 25 G9, Gems Court, Chennai – 34. Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aafca-0343-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit : Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथा. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 843/Chny/2022 & CO No.: 17/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Aditya Trading Solutions Income Tax, v. Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), 25 G9, Gems Court, Chennai – 34. Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AAFCA-0343-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Obj…

Shri Balkrishna Gajanan Thopte, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…rts viz, a) A Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC) b) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112(SC) c) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) e) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674(SC) f) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) It needs to be appreciated that what is essentially under cloud, and being seriously doubted as to the genuineness, is the gain stated to arise on the transaction. It is the gain which is abnormal. In fact, even assuming that the purchases as genuine, the sales, given the high rates fo…

Lokenath Investment Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…identity and creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transaction e.g. as in Shankar Industries Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Nanak Chandra Laxman Das Vs. CIT (Cal) 140 ITR 151, Hari Chand Virender Paul Vs. CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148, CIT Vs. BijuPatnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674, ITO Vs. Skyjet Aviation (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Ahd-TM) 71 ITD 95, CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, Oriental Wire Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 131 ITR 688, Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, 14 Lokenath Investment Consultants…

DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68Section 80G

…shareholders existed and in the absence of such an enquiry whether action was validly taken under section 263 or not was certainly a question of law which should have been referred. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 was clearly applicable here. It is equally well settled that in order to bring out the real controversy in issue the High Court can reframe a question. In the present case the real controversy was whether the Commissioner was right in coming to the conclusion that the ITO had not made the necessary enquiries and action under section 263 of the Ac…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. R K Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli– CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…and unsecured loans. Therefore, we are of the view that this issue should also be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer to examine the source of cash deposit in respect of unsecured loan. 24. We note that in the case of CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik 1986 (160 ITR 674) (SC), the Apex Court held that even the source of funds has to be proved by the assessee in case of cash credits. Similarly, in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 1995 (214 ITR 801) (SC), The Apex Court held that where any sums found credited in the books of the assessee in any previous year, by virtue of Section 68 of the Act, it may, be charged…

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar a. CIT· (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & othrs. o. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) . (vi) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif u. CIT (1963) 50 ITR l(SC) viii) CIT vs. Biju Patnaik - (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala &Others - (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Page 7 of 21 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2014-15 7.1. In the decision delivered on 27.3.2015, the Hon'ble ITAT, E-Bench, Mumbai has allowed the Revenue appeal in the case of Shamim M. Bharwani vide ITA No. 4906/Mum/2011 (AY 2006-07) and observed as under: "firstly, docume…

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar a. CIT· (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & othrs. o. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) . (vi) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif u. CIT (1963) 50 ITR l(SC) viii) CIT vs. Biju Patnaik - (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala &Others - (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Page 7 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 7.1. In the decision delivered on 27.3.2015, the Hon'ble ITAT, E-Bench, Mumbai has allowed the Revenue appeal in the case of Shamim M. Bharwani vide ITA No. 4906/Mum/2011 (AY 2006-07) and observed as under: "firstly, docume…

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

…IT(A) erred in holding that the company discharged the onus of proving the credits ignoring the jurisdictional HC decision iii the case of Dhanalakshmi Steel Rerolling Mills Vs.CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780 and the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of CIT Vs.BijuPatnaik 160 ITR 674. (vi) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the additions made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act, on the ground that the company was not carrying on any business activity daring the year under consideration and no source of income exists. (vii) The Ld. CIT(A) was erred in holding that the sha…

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 593/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant vs. M/s Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [PAN: AAECS8312C] Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR, appeared on beha…

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 592/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant vs. M/s Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [PAN: AAECS8312C] Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR, appeared on beha…

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 591/KOL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant vs. M/s Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [PAN: AAECS8312C] Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR, appeared on beha…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 706/PUN/2019 : Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sangeeta B. Mangrule Plot No. 64, Mayurban Colony, Shahnoorwadi Darga Road, Aurangabad PAN: AJIPM 9153 H :Appellant Vs. The Asstt. CIT Cir. 2, Aurangabad : Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11-08-2022 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad’s order dated 07-02-2019 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A)- 2/461/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s 143…

CIT v. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) — Cited in 46 Judgments | BharatTax