CIT v. Merchant

280 CTR 381High Court2015#1676 most cited

What is CIT v. Merchant authority for?

Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee bears the onus to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction to explain any cash credit. Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation allows the amount to be added to the assessee's income.

68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Merchem Ltd. · 280 CTR 381 · Section 68 Income Tax Act · cash credits explanation · creditworthiness of creditors · genuineness of transaction · burden of proof assessee · unexplained money · sundry creditors addition · loan genuineness

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68 of the Income Tax ActSection 139(9) of the ActSection 143(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 143(2) of the Income Tax ActSection 143(3) of the ActSection 18 of the Limitation ActSection 19 of the Limitation Act

Issues it is cited on

sundry creditorssection 68transfercompanyindiadocumentbusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Merchant

DCIT CIRCLE 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITED DRILLING TOOLS LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…urt in the case of CIT vs. AMIL Limited [2010] 321 ITR 508 [DEL] without appreciating the judgement given by the Hon'ble High Courts in the case of CITVs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 [GUJ] and CIT, Cochin Vs Merchem Ltd. [2015] 280 CTR 381 [Kerala] and CBDT's Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015." 2 DCIT Vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd. 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 19,08,698/- made on account of sundry creditors." 3. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)…

DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI vs. WAH HOLIDAYS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2339/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit Vs. Wah Holidays Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Circle – 27 (1) 121, Floor, Sec-44, New Delhi Gurgaon Pan No.Aabcw0776D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Prakash Nath Baranwal, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Sunil Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 68

…vt. Ltd.Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporation Circle-3(2), W.P. No. 5264 of 2018 (Madras), Commissioner of Income-II, Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchem Ltd. 2015 280 CTR 381 (KER) and the CBDT's Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO…

DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UK INDIA BUSINESS COUNCIL INDIA P.LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3249/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: filing of return replying on the judgment of jurisdiction High Court given in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL. Ltd. without appreciating the judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cooperation Circle- 3(2), WP No. 5264 of 2018 (Madras), CIT-2, vs. Gujrat State Road Transport Cooperation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and CTT vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Kerala) and CBDT's Circular No. 22/2

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…e of M/s. Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cooperation Circle- 3(2), WP No. 5264 of 2018 (Madras), CIT-2, vs. Gujrat State Road Transport Cooperation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and CTT vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Kerala) and CBDT's Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015.” 5. "The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee was engaged in business of promoting and investment between U…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIRAJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 774/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhrydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2704/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7/8, Roop Nagar, Central Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv3062D

For Appellant: Sh. Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Verma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…ircle 3(2), W.P. No. 5264 of 20 1 8 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Gujarat Stale Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and ITA Nos. 774, 2704 & 3026/Del/2019 5 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (KER) and the CBDT’s Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the AO without appreciating that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of M/s. Shelter Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and genuineness of loan transaction e…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIRAJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3026/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhrydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2704/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7/8, Roop Nagar, Central Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv3062D

For Appellant: Sh. Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Verma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…ircle 3(2), W.P. No. 5264 of 20 1 8 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Gujarat Stale Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and ITA Nos. 774, 2704 & 3026/Del/2019 5 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (KER) and the CBDT’s Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the AO without appreciating that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of M/s. Shelter Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and genuineness of loan transaction e…

VIRAJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2704/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhrydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2704/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7/8, Roop Nagar, Central Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv3062D

For Appellant: Sh. Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Verma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…ircle 3(2), W.P. No. 5264 of 20 1 8 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Gujarat Stale Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and ITA Nos. 774, 2704 & 3026/Del/2019 5 Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (KER) and the CBDT’s Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the AO without appreciating that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of M/s. Shelter Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and genuineness of loan transaction e…

JANGLOOS CHANDAK CREATION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

JANGLOOS CHANDAK CREATION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 494/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especial…

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especial…

PNP ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A C OF INCOME TAX CIR. 27(1) , HALDIA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the PNP Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especial…

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

MD. MUJIBUR RAHAMAN,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 381/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the 3 Md. Mujibur Rahaman AY 2014-15 sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are…

KANCHAN METALS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

TRIDENT SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 303/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

TRIDENT SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

MICROVIEWS INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.P.C., BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/KOL/2021[2018-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

FLOWLINE SERVICES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

VICTORY SURVEILLIANCE & ESCORTS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

M/S JAIKISHANDASS MALL JUTE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CPC, , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e ITR. The appellant has quoted a number of judgments in his favour. However it is seen that the Hon’bleGujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Merchant (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Ker) have clearly held that the scope of section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both the provisions together to consider whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum belated by paid towards such contribution, especially, when such sums are received by the assessee (employe…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4