Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 133(6).

CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited (372 ITR 232), spanning 2016 to 2026.

372 ITR 232High Court2015#9032 most cited

What is CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited authority for?

The failure of creditors to respond to revenue inquiries or provide accounts does not automatically deem them bogus or lead to additions, especially if the assessee provides uncontroverted facts and particulars about the transactions. The revenue must demonstrate that the amounts rightfully belonged to the assessee.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited · section 68 · section 69A · unexplained cash credit · share application money · genuineness of transaction · addition u/s 68 · assistant commissioner · failure to furnish accounts · creditors bogus · uncontroverted facts

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 133(6)Section 69A Section 131

Issues it is cited on

share application money addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction section 131 assistant commissioner unexplained cash credit section 68 section 69a section 143(2)previous year transfer section 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited

M/S Bhagirath Dairy Private Limited, Nagaur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagaur

The appeal is allowed

ITA 755/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…reme Court held that no addition could be made. The assessee had discharged the burden laid upon it. I.T.A. No.755/Jodh/2025 & SA No. 03/Jodh/2025 (In ITA No. 755/Jodh/2025) Assessment Year 2017-18 24 (ii) CIT Vs. Chandela Trading Corporation Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 232 (Kolkata High Court) Mere omission on the part of the creditors to subject themselves to the enquiry by the revenue or their failure to furnish accounts would not lead to the conclusion that the creditors were bogus (iii) CIT vs. H.S. Builders 78 DTR 169 (Rajasthan High Court) Deposit of cash in the account of creditors just before giving loan to…

Santosh Kumar Keshri, Patna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

…accounts could not lead to the conclusion that the creditors lacked identity, without any contradictions of the facts and particulars of the transaction between them furnished by the assessee being uncontroverted – CIT vs Chandela Trading Co. (P) Ltd | 2015 | 372 ITR 232 (Cal).” As claimed by the assessee during the proceeding with Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee is not acquainted with the laws and rules of the Act and was not in position to submit third party confirmation as enquired by the Ld. A.O. The assessee is praying to consider additional ground of appeals for considering the genuineness of the f…

Raj Kumari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Jaipur

ITA 1024/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Hitiesha Ruhela, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ditors. There was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors. In these circumstances, Supreme Court held that no addition could be made. The assessee had discharged the burden laid upon it. (4) CIT Vs. Chandela Trading Corporation Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 232 (Kolkata High Court) Mere omission on the part of the creditors to subject themselves to the enquiry by the revenue or their failure to furnish accounts would not lead to the conclusion that the creditors were bogus. (5) CIT Vs. HS Builders 78 DTR 169 (Rajasthan High Court) Deposit of cash in the account of creditors just before giving loan to…

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…a Corporation (P) Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 78 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) Held that in case the creditor does not appear in response to summons issued u/s 131, no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of the assessee. (2) CIT Vs. Chandela Trading Co P. Ltd (2015)372 ITR 232 (Cal) Held that the Revenue failed to bring material on record that the amount of credits in fact belonged to the assessee. Mere omission on the part of the creditors to subject themselves to the inquiry by the revenue or their failure to furnish accounts would not lead to the conclusion that the creditors lacked identity. The facts/accounts fur…

Sparrows Home Appliances Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-11(2)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 272/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Sparrows Home Ito- Ward 11(2)-3 Appliances Private Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Limited 803, 8Th Floor, New Marine Lines, Jay Antriksh, Vs. Churchgate, Makhwana Road, Mumbai- 400020. Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400059. Pan: Aaocs5028F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sparrows Home ITO- Ward 11(2)-3 Appliances Private Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Limited 803, 8th Floor, New Marine Lines, Jay Antriksh, Vs. Churchgate, Makhwana Road, Mumbai- 400020. Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400059. PAN: AAOCS5028F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for : Assessee by : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.R. Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R. Date of Hearing : 25 . 06 . 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26 . 07 . 2…

Selvi Chittiraja, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3437/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…being initiated by the Revenue or non- 7 furnishing of accounts by them shall not lead to doubt identity of creditors. This legal principle is supported by decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Chandela Trading Co. P.Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 232. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to identity of the creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has satisfactorily explained credits being loan taken from M/s.Aashana Enterprises by furnishing necessary details. Hence, we direct the Assessing…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaizen Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2899/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2899/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.34/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2899/Mum/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) बनाम 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 / Vs. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj)(HC) [SLP dismissed by SC (2002) 254 ITR (St.) 275] 2. CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.)(HC). 3. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom)(HQ 4. CIT vs. Chandela Trading Co. P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 232 (Cal.)(HC) 5. ACIT v. Sanjay M. Jhaveri (2015) 168 TTJ 751(Mum.)(Trib.) 4.7 Considering the evidence brought on record by the appellant company regarding the loans taken during the year, the explanations furnished and after considering the case laws on the issue, the addition made by the AO is found to be unwarranted. Therefore, the addition of R…

ITO, Ward - 39(1), Midnapore, Paschim Medinipur vs. Sri Saubhik De, Paschim Medinipur

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

ITA 1195/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravisaubhik De, Vs Ito, Raghunathpur, Jhargram, Ward-39(1), Midnapore. Paschim Medinapore. Pan-Ajjpd9349M (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Ito, Saubhik De, Ward-39(1), Vill.-Raghunathpur, Po-Jhargram, Midnapore. Distt.-Kshudiram Nagar, Paschim Medinipur. Pan-Ajjpd9349M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Banerjee, Fca Respondent By Sh. C.J.Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.05.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Raviboth These Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.03.2018 Passed By Cit(A)-11, Kolkata For Ay 2014-15 Respectively.

Section 68

…ts in the books of accounts, the same cannot be added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 5. Further referred to decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs Chandela Trading Co.P.Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 232 (Cal.) for the proposition failure by creditors to participate any enquiry and furnish accounts does not mean that the creditors lacked identity and the said sums cannot be added under the head “cash credit” u/s 68 of the Act and brought our attention to para 3 of the said decision. We find that the AO added the impugned amount alleging that the…

Saubhik De, Paschim Medinapore vs. ITO, Ward - 39(1), Midnapore

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

ITA 1012/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2014-15

Section 68

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Ram Textiles, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3478/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ng with confirmation. It was contended that the loans were repaid by the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision in ORIENT TRADING CO. LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHANDELA TRADING CO. P. LTD. 372 ITR 232 (Cal.). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in textiles and other merchandises, consisting of two partners. During the relevant period, the assessee borrowed loans for it…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…assessee relied upon decision of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360(Guj. HC), CIT v. ABT Limited (2015) 370 ITR 159(Mad.HC), CIT v. Kapoor Chand Magnesh Chand(2003) 218 Taxman 157(Mag.)(All. HC) , CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited (2015) 372 ITR 232(Cal. HC), CIT v. Smt Sanghamita Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481(Gau. HC), CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217(Raj. HC), CIT v. Nemichand Kothari (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gau. HC), CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls and Investment Limited(2016) 237 Taxman 104(Del HC), CIT v. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480(SC) . Our attention was also drawn to instructio…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)