How many judgments cite CIT v. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd.?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. (227 ITR 391), spanning 2017 to 2025.

CIT v. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 145(3), Section 151, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, Section 132(1).

227 ITR 391High Court#10366 most cited

What is CIT v. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. authority for?

The genuineness of a transaction can be decided based on the primary facts on record, meaning the revenue is not required to produce clinching evidence to prove purchases are bogus.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. · 227 ITR 391 · genuineness of transaction · primary facts on record · bogus purchases · revenue burden of proof · income tax assessment · accommodation entry

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 145(3)Section 151 Section 11A of the Central Excise Act Section 132(1)Section 133A Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of account borrowed satisfaction section 145(3)section 145 tangible material escapement of income regular assessment accommodation entry section 69c reason to believe genuineness of the transaction first appeal

Judgments citing CIT v. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Mohd Rizwan, Delhi

ITA 3535/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 80C

…he Act. The addition thus fails on facts of the case. In the Order, the AO has relied on following case-laws : 1. India Woolen Carpet factory 178 ITR 420 (Raj.), 2. VISP (P) Ltd 186 CTR 717 (MP), 3. Precision Finance 208 ITR 465 (Cal), 4. Golcha Prop. Pvt Ltd 227 ITR 391 (Raj), 5. Chaturbhuj Pandey AIR 1969 (SC) 255, 6. Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC), and 7. Sanjay Oil Cakes 316 ITR 274 (Gujarat), and 8. C VasantLal& Co. 45 ITR 206 (SC) In the case of India Woolen Carpet factory supra, the assesse failed to provide addresses of the suppliers as well as evidence to prove genuineness of the transactions. But in the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 454/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…T V/s Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd 208 11K 455 (Cal). Ine Hon ble Calcutta High Court has held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non genuine transaction genuine. (C) In CIT V/s Golcha Prop. Pvt Ltd., 227 ITR 391 (Raj.) it was held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogug. (d) In Beena Metals V/s CIT, 240 ITR 222((Ker) the Hon'ble High Court has held that failure to furnish particulars of brokers through whom…

Dinesh Haldia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 384/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 260ASection 69C

…made by account payee cheques are not sufficient to establish genuineness of purchases. 19 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT B. Registration under Sales tax Act does not give conclusion that purchases from such parties were genuine. " CIT Vs. Golcha Properties P. Itd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj.) " CIT Vs. La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del.) " CIT Vs. Vaibhav Gems 13. In view of the above discussed facts, since the books of account have been rejected, therefore, the Trading Addition is made @30% on total turnover of Rs. 10,76,900/-. Since, the assessee merely declared G.P. rate @ 10.33%, therefore, remaining percentage of G.P. will be app…

Harisons Steel Limited, Wada Thane vs. Dy CIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 3957/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t that no direct evidence could be produced by the assessee to support the bills, it was held that it would be fair to restrict the disallowance to 10 per cent of the purchase price mentioned in the bills. In the case of CIT Vs. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. (227 ITR 391) (Rajasthan HC), it was held that the genuineness of transaction, could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. Hence the department was not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases were bogus. In view of the foregoing discussion, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases/ accommodation entry has to be ba…

Harisons Steel Ltd, Wada Thane vs. DCIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 3943/MUM/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 148

…It all depends on the facts and circumstances / situations of the case as held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846, 851, 852 (Gauh). In the case of CIT Vis Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. 9 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.11 Further, the appellant has submitted that it has declared an NP rate of 9.15% for the assessment year under consideration and relied on the CBDT instr…

Jet Chemicals P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. Ast CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

ITA 3707/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar

Section 143(1)

…Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Similarly the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (49 lTD 177) that issue of bills by the alleged supplier was not a conclusive proof. In the case of CIT Vs. Goicha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. (227 ITR 391) (Rajasthan HC), it was held that the genuineness of transaction, could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus. There are number of decisions by the various courts where 100% disallowance of bogus purchases, has been upheld. Some of these a…

Shankar Jhalani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 40

…of 100% of bogus purchases was justified 5. 178 CTR 420 (Raj) -Indian woollen Carpet Factory- held that onus is on assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. 6. 186 CTR 718 (MP) - VISP Pvt. Ltd.- Same view was taken as in case of Indian woolen 7. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) - Golcha Properties P Ltd 8. 250 ITR 575 (Del) - Law Medica 9. 240 ITR 322 (KER) - Beena Metals 10. 229 ITR 181 (MP) - System India Casting 11. 50 DTR 502 (ITAT, Jaipur) - Deepak Dalela 12. 49 ITR 112 (SC) - Shri Lekha Banerjee 13. 288 ITR 10 (SC) - Kachawala Gems In view of the above, where the assessee filled the appeal /CO may kin…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…had admitted the fact that they have merely provided entry / issued bills without physically delivering any goods. Case laws relied to support the stand of the department: I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 In the case of CIT Vis GoIcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) it was held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus. The onus of proof at all relevant times rests upon the assessee. It is for the assessee to establish by evidence that a particular allowance…

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3021/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…erein these suppliers, on oath had admitted the fact that they have merely provided entry / issued bills without physically delivering any goods. t _ Case laws relied to support the stand of the department: In the case of CIT V/s Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) it was held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus. , . 5 ITA No.3353/Mum/2016 & ITA No.3021/Mum/2016 Etesh P Jain HUF, Bhiwandi The onus of proof at all relevant times rests upon the assess…