How many judgments cite CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.?

303 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 680), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 147.

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 680High Court2017#259 most cited

What is CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

303

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. · Gagandeep Infrastructure · 394 ITR 680 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · source of source · share capital · share premium · creditworthiness · genuineness of transaction · assessee's onus · burden of proof

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 272247 Taxmann 245

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source share capital and share premium creditworthiness of the creditor summons under section 131 share application money permanent account number section 56(2)(viib)paper company addition under section 68 genuineness of the transaction addition u/s 68 unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1422 & 1423/Mum/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 Smt. Pratiksha Shah, ACIT, A-602, Ekta Milan, Central Cirle-11, बनाम/ Devki Nagar, Eksar Village, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Borivali (W), M. K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAFPM4838D Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT-25(2), Smt. Pratiksha Shah, C-11,…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Khushboo Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3647/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148Section 68

…aper book. These confirmation letters were filed before the learned CIT(A). Learned AR further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has followed decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also held in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd. (84 taxamnn.com 58) that once the assessee had produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of share applicant companies, burden would shift on the Revenue to establish their cases…