CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance

141 ITR 706High Court1983#3986 most cited

What is CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance authority for?

If partners are identifiable and confirm their investment in a firm, with supporting evidence, the firm cannot be taxed on such capital contributions under Section 68.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance · Section 68 · partners capital · identifiable partners · confirm investment · firm taxation · source of source · unexplained cash credit

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 131Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 256(1)section 256section 116creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceaddition under section 68section 251(1)section 34section 251(1)(a)section 132(4a)sundry creditorsunexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack vs. M/S. Sonthalia Rice Mill, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Vs. M/S. Sonthalia Rice Mill, Plot M/S. Sonthalia Rice Mill, Plot Cuttack No.1554B, No.1554B, Bidanasi, Bidanasi, Cda, Cda, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aajfm 7681 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K.Sheth M.K.Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl S.C.Mohanty, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 5/4/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17 / 05/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl
Section 44A

…returns, they declared the income from agricultural operations. They had produced extracts of 7/12 and 8A of the lands in support of their claims. The sums in question could not be taxed in the firm's hands. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaiswal Motor Finance 141 ITR 706 (All.) 1983 Prayer That in view of the above settled judicial pronouncements, the impugned addition so made by the AO being not sustainable in the eye of law and the grounds taken by the revenue, being not backed by any concrete evidence, needs to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 11. Precisely reiterating the above written submission, ld…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Karimnagar vs. Durga Granites, Karimnagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1706/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Durga Granites, Circle-1, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aagfd 8247 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 Order

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…n CIT v. Antipam Udyog (1983) 142 ITR 133 (Pat). The Tribunal rested its conclu'sions upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 18 (Born) and that of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance (1983) 141 ITR 706 (All). 8. Section 68 of the Act no doubt directs that if an assessee fails to explain the nature and source of credit entered in the books of account of any previous veer, the same can be treated as income. In this case, the amount, that is sought to be treated as income of the firm is the contribution made by the partners to the capital. In a wa…

M/S Lucky Wines, Fatehbad vs. DCIT, Sirsa

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 527/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri. M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 68

…sessee firm, therefore the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not justified, reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Metachem Industries reported at [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP) • CIT Vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance reported at [1983] 141 ITR 706(All) • CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India reported at [2007] 208 CTR 457 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Burma Electro Corporation reported at [2003] 126 Taxman 533 (P&H) 10. In his rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material availabl…

Verma Service Station, Firozabad vs. ACIT, Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 212/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68

…am 87 ITR 349 (SC) 4. CIT vs. V.S. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All.). 5. CIT vs. Johrimal Goyal 147 Taxman 448 (Alld). 6. Dwarikadhish Sugar Industries vs. ITO, in ITA No. 115/Lkw/2011, dated 24.05.2012. ITAT, Lucknow. (TM) 7. CIT vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance 141 ITR 706 (All. High Court). 8. Shri Avtar Singh Darshan Singh vs. ACIT in ITA No. 455/Agra/2011, Dated 26.07.2013 (ITAT, Agra). 9. ITO vs. M/s prestressed Concrete Industries, in ITA No.167/Agra/2011 dated 15.05.2012 (ITAT, Agra). 7. The respondent DR placed heavy reliance on the impugned order. He has drawn our attention to APB page no. 4, 7, and 9 the r…

Champ Info Software, Noida vs. Prcit, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Champ Info Software, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, E-24, Sector-55, A2, D Block, Sector 24, Noida. Noida (U.P.)-201301 Vs

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ITR 344 (P&H) CIT v. Barna Electro Corporation v) 11 TMI 630 (P&H) CIT v. Metal & Metals of India 5 Assessment year 2013-14 vi) 208 CTR 459 (P&H) CIT v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 ITR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 221 ITR 239 (All) Surendra Mahan Seth v. CIT xi) 263 CTR 612 (All) Zafa Ahmad and Co. v. CIT xii) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Perwez Ahmad and Others xiii) 282 CTR 200 (Pat) CIT v. Anurag Rice Mills xiv) 268 ITR 381(Pat) CIT v. Md. Parwez Ahmad xv) 400 ITR 120 (J…

M/S Alliance Engineers and Construction, Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the first issue raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the second issue is allowed

ITA 6180/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Alliance Engineers & Vs. Addl.Cit, Construction, Range-1, 1645, Sector-29, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan: Aakfa0810A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-Faridabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.25,04,347/- On Account Of Depreciation.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 32(2)

…nvestment can be examined in the hands of the partner u/s 69, etc.:- i) Punjab & Haryana High Court in 208 CTR 459, 224 ITR 180; ii) Madras High Court in Taj Browellers 291 ITR 232; iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lovely Exports; and iv) Allahabad High Court in 141 ITR 706. 14. He accordingly submitted that addition, if any, can be made in the hands of the partner and not in the hands of the partnership firm. However, since the partner has sufficient means to extent the cash loan, therefore, no addition could have been made and, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) be set aside. 15. The ld. DR, on the other hand, he…

M/S. Shri Gems, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2912/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shri Gems, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/2441, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Ward-33(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcfs2245L Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-28, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 234BSection 69C

…ot in the hands of the assessee. 13 Shri Gems The aforesaid view is also supported by the decisions of the various Hon’ble Courts as discussed hereinafter. 20. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance 141 ITR 706 (All) has held as under: "If there are cash credit entries in the books of a firm, in which the accounts of the individual partners exist, and it is found as a facts and circumstances that cash was received by the firm from its partners, then, in the absence of any material to indicate that they were the profits of the firm, it could not be asses…

M/S. Prakash Eng. Works, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 167/KOL/2008[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144

…he inference that the said sum represents the income of firm accruing from undisclosed sale transactions.” 6. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance (1983) 141 ITR 706 (All), wherein the similar proposition was that no addition of unexplained cash credit can be made wherein the partners have introduced capital in the hands of the firm and in that eventuality addition cannot be made in the hands of the firm. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find from th…

ACIT vs. M/S Coastal Roaways

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…he hands of the firm in the absence of evidence to indicate that the cash credits represents the firm's profits and the firm is not further required to explain the source of deposit in the hands of the partners. It was so held in CIT vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance 141 ITR 706 (All) and CIT vs. Anupam Udyog 142 ITR 133 (Pat). In CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 161 CTR (MP) 444 also it was held that once the firm has satisfactorily explained that the credit entries in the name of its partners represent the amount invested by them the burden of proof stood discharged and the amount cannot be treated as income of the f…