CIT v. Karaj Singh

15 Taxmann.com 70High Court2011#3623 most cited

What is CIT v. Karaj Singh authority for?

Addition under Section 68 is not sustainable if the Department accepts the factum of repayment of funds. The assessee's ability to demonstrate the source of funds, even from a loan repaid by the assessee, can negate additions under Section 68.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Karaj Singh · Section 68 · addition u/s 68 · source of source · preponderance of probability · onus of proof · creditworthiness of the creditor · share application money · repayment of loan

Also reported as

208 ITR 849

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 148Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcebogus share capitalpreponderance of probabilityonus of proofcreditworthiness of the creditoraddition u/s 68section 153a(1)(b)section 65baddition under section 68share application moneysection 65borrowed satisfaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Karaj Singh

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…erefore, these credits could not be doubted as per the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ojas Tarmake Pvt. Ltd. (158 Taxmann.com 176) and the decision of Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70). The Agra Tribunal in the case of Sh. Agarsen Logistic (supra) held that the additional onus to prove the source of source of unsecured loans / borrowings as introduced by Finance Act, 2022 would apply only from AY 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The bench further held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of pro…

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…erefore, these credits could not be doubted as per the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ojas Tarmake Pvt. Ltd. (158 Taxmann.com 176) and the decision of Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70). The Agra Tribunal in the case of Sh. Agarsen Logistic (supra) held that the additional onus to prove the source of source of unsecured loans / borrowings as introduced by Finance Act, 2022 would apply only from AY 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The bench further held that addition u/s 68 could not be made on preponderance of pro…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1593/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68Section 69C

…n it was held that when the loans were repaid in subsequent years and the explanation offered by the assessee on repayment was accepted by revenue, the addition could not be sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70) held that where the assessee filed competed details to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the loans stood repaid through normal banking channels, Ld. AO was not justified in treating the said loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Similar is the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajiv Go…

SARAF THE JEWELLER, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68Section 69C

…n it was held that when the loans were repaid in subsequent years and the explanation offered by the assessee on repayment was accepted by revenue, the addition could not be sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70) held that where the assessee filed competed details to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the loans stood repaid through normal banking channels, Ld. AO was not justified in treating the said loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Similar is the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajiv Go…

MURAD KHETANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1376/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Murad Khetani, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of R/o. Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle 10(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AIFPK5429E (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, C.A. and Assessee Shri Kapil Shah, C.A. Re…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1592/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68

…25/2018) held that when the loans were repaid in subsequent years and the explanation offered by the assessee on repayment was accepted by revenue, the addition could not be sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70) held that where the assessee filed competed details to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the loans stood repaid through normal banking channels, Ld. AO was not justified in treating the said loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Similar is the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajiv Go…

SARAF THE JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CEN-2 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1230/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68

…25/2018) held that when the loans were repaid in subsequent years and the explanation offered by the assessee on repayment was accepted by revenue, the addition could not be sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Karaj Singh (15 Taxmann.com 70) held that where the assessee filed competed details to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the loans stood repaid through normal banking channels, Ld. AO was not justified in treating the said loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Similar is the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajiv Go…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 308/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1 ITA Nos.307 & 308/Chandi/2025 AY: 2019-20 & 2022-23 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.307/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.308/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) DCIT (Central Circle-1) Shree Ganesh Edibles Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. SCO 1-6, 2nd Floor Shop No.25B, New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Khanna (Punjab) – 141401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAJCS-6800-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1 ITA Nos.307 & 308/Chandi/2025 AY: 2019-20 & 2022-23 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.307/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.308/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) DCIT (Central Circle-1) Shree Ganesh Edibles Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. SCO 1-6, 2nd Floor Shop No.25B, New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Khanna (Punjab) – 141401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAJCS-6800-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NOUVELLE SECURITIES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4852/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 37Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4852/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2016-17] Nouvelle Securities Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T 42, Community Center New Delhi New Friends Colony, Zakir Nagar, South East Delhi PAN – AAACN 0211 F Co No. 21/DEL/2025 (ITA No. 4852/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2016-17]) The A.C.I.T Vs. Nouvelle Securities Pvt Ltd New Delhi 42, Community Center New Friends Colony, Zakir Nagar, South East Delhi PAN – AAACN 0211 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, CA Shri Vartik Choksi,…

RAJIV GOYAL, PATIALA,PATIALA, PUNJAB vs. JAO ITO WARD-3, PATIALA, PATIALA

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

ITA 481/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A) have not been considered properly.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 481 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajiv Goyal बनाम The ITO H.No. 6, Rajbaha Road Green View, Ward-3 Patiala, Punjab-147001 Patiala "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFUPG4511P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.…

NIDHI RANI,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…s, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed by the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H). 25. In view of the above discussion and considering the fact that the assessee has been able to demonstrate that funds given by M/s Tejas Handloom are majorly sourced out of the loan repaid by the assessee herself which payment has not been doubted and, therefore, no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we hereby d…

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1260/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…alcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT MahavirCrimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the light of the view expressed on merits in favour of the assessee, we are not inclined to examine the nuances of challenge to the jurisdiction assumed under s. 147 of the Act, approval granted under s. 151 of the Act, invocation of s. 147 instead of s. 153C and absence of DIN…

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1259/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…alcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT MahavirCrimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the light of the view expressed on merits in favour of the assessee, we are not inclined to examine the nuances of challenge to the jurisdiction assumed under s. 147 of the Act, approval granted under s. 151 of the Act, invocation of s. 147 instead of s. 153C and absence of DIN…

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ;ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…om 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the light of the view expressed on merits in favour of the assessee, we are not inclined to examine the nuances of challenge to the jurisdiction assumed under s. 147 of the Act, approval granted under s. 151 of the Act, invocation of s. 147 instead of s. 153C and absence of DIN…

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1268/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…om 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the light of the view expressed on merits in favour of the assessee, we are not inclined to examine the nuances of challenge to the jurisdiction assumed under s. 147 of the Act, approval granted under s. 151 of the Act, invocation of s. 147 instead of s. 153C and absence of DIN…

DELIGHT PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…om 251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom). 10. In the light of the view expressed on merits in favour of the assessee, we are not inclined to examine the nuances of challenge to the jurisdiction assumed under s. 147 of the Act, approval granted under s. 151 of the Act, invocation of s. 147 instead of s. 153C and absence of DIN…

DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 317/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ax -vs- Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat). (ii)Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT s. Mahavir Crimpers 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj). (iii) CIT vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 txmann.com 70 (P&H) & Panna Devi Chowdhary vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom) etc. (iv) CIT v. Sahibganj Electric Cables (P.) Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 408 (CAL.). (v) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd.Reported as 156 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) (vi)CIT v. Rohini Builders [2003] 127 Taxman 523/[2002] 256 ITR360 (Guj.) (vii) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in the PrincipalCommissioner of Incom…

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ax -vs- Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat). (ii)Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT s. Mahavir Crimpers 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj). (iii) CIT vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 txmann.com 70 (P&H) & Panna Devi Chowdhary vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom) etc. (iv) CIT v. Sahibganj Electric Cables (P.) Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 408 (CAL.). (v) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd.Reported as 156 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) (vi)CIT v. Rohini Builders [2003] 127 Taxman 523/[2002] 256 ITR360 (Guj.) (vii) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in the PrincipalCommissioner of Incom…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 359/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 250/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jasdeep Kaur Chadha, Vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Jalandhar, 5, Defence Colony, Jalandhar. Jalandhar City, Jalandhar. [PAN: AAMFJ9095L] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 359/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Jasdeep Kaur Chadha, Tax, Jalandhar, 5, Defence Jalandhar. Colony, Jalandhar City, Jalandhar. [PAN: AAMFJ9095L] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv.…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2