How many judgments cite CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.?

122 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (232 ITR 820), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 69, Section 69C, Section 133A.

CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.

232 ITR 820High Court1998#849 most cited

What is CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. authority for?

To discharge the onus under Section 68, an assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditor. Merely providing basic documentary evidence or a file number is insufficient; each credit entry requires a separate, detailed explanation.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. · 232 ITR 820 · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · identity genuineness creditworthiness · share capital · accommodation entry · mere furnishing PAN ITR insufficient · each entry explained separately

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69 Section 69C Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 106 creditworthiness of the creditor section 31 paper company source of source section 251(2)share capital and share premium section 251(1)(a)live link income tax settlement commission admission of additional evidence entry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Positive Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2274/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…nouncements that burden of proofs viz. identity of the creditor, his creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction u/s.68 are required to be discharged by the assessee only. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) held mere filing of Income Tax File No. of the creditors to prove genuineness of the cash credit. The creditor should be identified, the transaction should be genuine and there should be creditworthiness. The Ld. DR further submitted that in K.M. Sadhukhan and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies u…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Prb Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s PRB Securities Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AABCP 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Date of Hearing : 22.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)]…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ct and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not 9 M/s R & Business Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जे, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, 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 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Idhasoft Ltd. DCIT-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AABCI6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT-15(2)(1), M/s Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3rd Floor 3, Narayan Building,…

Mukund Kumar Mantri, Siliguri vs. I.to.WD - 1(3), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 1878/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(2)

…prove the creditworthiness of the alleged creditor and/or donor. Therefore, the burden never shifted to the department. The identity and creditworthiness should be proved and there should be genuine transactions as held in CIT vs Korley Trading Co Ltd (1998) 232 ITR 820, 824 (Cal). In this connection, the order of the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Smt. Kalpana Ghosh vs ITO, W1(4), Siliguri (ITA No. 1027/Kol/2007) can also be referred to where the identity of the donors were established and gift amount was given by Bank cheque but the source of the bank deposit remain unexplained, held that whether the do…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ct and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not 10 Shreedham Builders suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacro…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…t and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always 25 Meridian Chem Bond…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…ould 168 ITR 493 Cal over shadow all other short ITO V / s Kashmir Ind. Palace 99 coming. Taxmann (Chd) (Mag) RamanandSagar V/s DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) CIT-I v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 206(Gujarat) CIT V. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (CAL) CIT V /s Basant Investment Corporation (1999) 238 ITR 680 8 ITA No.1141/M/18- Md. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan (Cal). 10 Transaction duly supported by the CIT V/s M K Bros. [163 ITR 249] evidence, no evidence that cash ITO V/s Kanchanwala Gems 122 received back. Addition cannot TTJ 854 be made: 11 No Defects in books of account R K Syntheti…

Pratik Syntex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6690/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Pratik Syntex Private Ito 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar V. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaecp3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143(3)

…man 207/18 taxmann.com 217(Delhi), f) CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407/214 Taxman 429/30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi), g) CIT v. N.R. Protfolio P. Ltd. [2014] 222 taxman 157/42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi)., h) CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820(Cal.) i) C.Kant & Co. v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63(Cal.) j) Shankar Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689(Cal.) 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 08-09-2016 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has come in an appeal before the tribunal . The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment year under consideration is AY 2012-13 an…

P. Divyasri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1095/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 131

…hat three ingredients i.e., identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and in the absence of proving the same, the Tax Authorities are entitled to treat the cash credit as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. (i) CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd., (232 ITR 820) (Calcutta) and CIT vs. Maithan International (375 ITR 123) (Calcutta). (ii) She thus strongly supported the orders passed by the Tax Authorities. 10. In the rejoinder, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court are distinguishable as they involve different facts; in the case of Korl…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…T vs. Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) xxxi. Income Tax Officer vs. Skyjet Aviation (P) Ltd. 71 ITD 95 (Ahd) xxxii. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 465 (Cal) xxxiii. Orient Wire Industries (P) Ltd. 131 ITR 688 (Cal) xxxiv. CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal) xxxv. K.C.N. Chandrassekhar vs. ACIT 66 TTJ 355 (Bang) xxxvi. Gayathri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer 41taxmann.com 526 (AP) xxxvii. Agrawal Coal Corpn. (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 135 ITD 270 (Ind) xxxviii. Nipun Builders & Developers P. Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Del) xxxix. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports P. Ltd. 40 taxmann.com 458 (Del) xl. ACIT vs. Dhana…

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ct and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. 42 Navnidhi St…

Kajal Kumar Roy, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

Section 131Section 68

…y the assessee only when the assessee proves three things to the satisfaction of the AO viz, identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) has held that mere filing of the income tax file number of the creditors is not enough to prove the genuineness of the cash credit. The creditor should be identified. There should be creditworthiness. There should be a genuine transaction. In K.M. Sadhukhan & Sons P. Ltd vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal), it has been held that the burden lies…

Mrunal Shamsunder Naik, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

ITA 911/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 911/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Phadkar/For Respondent: Ms Arju Garodia

Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 911/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mrunal Shamsunder Naik ACIT 15(2) बिधम/ Mrunal Rahul Waradkar Matru Mandir, R. Grant 4th florr, Apollo Arcade, R. K. Rd, Mumbai Vs. Singh Marg, Andheri(E) Mumbai स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. ADFPN8528A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. S. Phadkar/ Kalpesh Taralkar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms Arju Garodia सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31/08/2017 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 0…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…(Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial and Ind. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " Precision Finance Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) " Nizam Wood Agency Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT (198)) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Ind. (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercials & Ind. Co. (1991) 187 ITR 597 (Cal) " M. A. Uneer Kutly Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT (…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…not discharge the onus cast on it u/s 68 of IT ct, 1961. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- I. CIT Vs. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal) 125 ITR 336 II. Basantipur Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 180 ITR 261 III. CIT v/s Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. IV. "Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249" V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VIII. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) I.. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) 5. Whether…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…Act and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rathaore) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.). The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. In the present a…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68