CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd.

380 ITR 289High Court2016#1876 most cited

What is CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to make an addition only when the assessee offers no explanation for a cash credit or the explanation provided is unsatisfactory. An addition for share application money is not justified if the Revenue has no material to dispute the genuineness or creditworthiness of the investors or the source of money.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. · 380 ITR 289 · Section 68 · share application money · addition under Section 68 · unexplained cash credits · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness · source of funds · burden of proof · Section 143(3) assessment

Also reported as

65 Taxmann.com 71236 Taxmann 502

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 36(1)(iii)Section 39 of the Companies Act
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

share application moneyaddition u/s 68accommodation entrygenuineness of the transactionsection 68personcompanyindiabusinessdocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd.

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…50 (Delhi) (paras 9, 10), xx. Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 440/30 taxmann.com 267 (All.) (paras 9, 10), xxi. Anil Rice Mills v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 236/[2005] 149 Taxman 313 (All.) (paras 9, 10), xxii. CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 289/236 Taxman 502/65 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) (para 11), xxiii. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108/71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) (para 12), xxiv. Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535 (Punj. & Har.) (para 12), xxv. CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports (P.) Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166/[2011] 202 Taxman 130/11 taxmann.com 54 (Delhi) (para 1…