How many judgments cite CIT v. Metachem Industries?

137 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Metachem Industries (245 ITR 160), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Metachem Industries come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 145(3), Section 147, Section 133(6).

CIT v. Metachem Industries

245 ITR 160High Court2000#741 most cited

What is CIT v. Metachem Industries authority for?

An assessee introducing cash credit or capital is not required to prove the ultimate source of funds of the creditor or investor once the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the immediate creditor/investor are established. The assessee's burden is discharged upon providing a satisfactory explanation and producing the person who deposited the amount.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Metachem Industries · 245 ITR 160 · Section 68 · onus of proof cash credit · source of source · capital introduction · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor

Also reported as

116 Taxmann 572

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 145(3)Section 147 Section 133(6)Section 144 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

onus of proof source of source bogus share capital addition under section 68 creditworthiness of the creditor share application money addition u/s 68 section 269ss section 269 genuineness of the transaction rejection of books of account loose papers

Judgments citing CIT v. Metachem Industries

Smt Jaya Sarda, Indore vs. Dy, CIT Circle -2(1), Indore

ITA 699/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2014-15

Section 44ASection 68

…itted that the Revenue Authorities were not justified in making/sustaining the additions. In support of the plea, reliance is also placed on the following case-laws: 1. CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd., (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 (MP); 3. STL Extrusion P. Ltd., T.O. dated 10.5.2010 in IT(SS)A No.259/Ind/2008 (Indore Tribunal); 4. PCIT vs. Himachal Fibers Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC); 4 Smt. Jaya Sharda -SMC ITA 699 of 2018 5. PCIT vs. Hi-Tech Residency P. Ltd. (2018) 96 taxmann.com 403 (SC); 6. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital (2013) 35 taxmann.com 444 (MP) 7. Aj…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Sarvajit Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 879/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Malav P. Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, CIT(DR)

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

…to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the Department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. In the instant case, the AO has not done even preliminary inquiry to disprove the contentions of the assessee. The AO has failed to disprove the contention of the assessee that (i) the loan taken from Ahuja Group and repaid are genuine and reflected in its books of accoun…

Rathod Hospital Equipment and Furniture Manufacturing Co., Rajkot Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 384/RJT/2013[1991-92]Status: FixedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri Namita Khurana, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e decision of ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of late Shri Sanjay Paliya in ITA No.922/Ind/2016. He has placed on record copy of this order. He also made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160. We find that both the decisions are on their facts. The assessee has received loan and if the AO is satisfied about the credit-worthiness of the creditor, genuineness of transaction and identity of creditors, addition ought not to be made under section 68. But where the assessee failed to demonstrate these 5 aspects with help of evidence, then…

ACIT 33(2), Mumbai vs. J.K. Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 3361/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit/Acit-33(2), Room M/S J.K. Industries F1-Gyan No. 608, 6Th Floor, Bldg. C- Darshan, S.V.P. Road, Kandivali Vs. 12, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai-400067. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. Pan No. Aaafj0696B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Harkamal Sohi Sandhu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…onus shifts to the Department for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It has been held so in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. In the instant case, the AO has failed to discharge the onus shifted to him. He has made the addition on surmises. Therefore, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the 1st ground of appeal. 7. The 2nd ground of appeal Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has…

ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Realstone Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1271/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Realstone 16(1)(5), Room No. Vs. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. A- 439, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 601, Crystal Palace, Link Bhavan M.K. Road, Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400064. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 201/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 1271/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Realstone Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. C/O Vs. 16(1)(5), Room No. 439, Ajay Daga& Co. Cas, 401-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan Pearl Arcade, Opp P K M.K. Road, Mumbai- Jewellers, Dawoodbaug 400020. Lane, Off J P Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria & Mr. Sachidanand Debe, Drs Assessee By : Mr. R.C. Jain, Ar Last Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2019

For Appellant: Mr. R.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria &

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

…ma facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department. It is has been held so in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890 ; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. As mentioned earlier at para 6, the assessee filed before the AO the relevant details and supporting documents with regard to issue of shares at a premium. A perusal of the assessment order clearly indicates that the AO without making any sort of inquiry has rejected the e…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jamini Nidustries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5516/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev K. Gubgotra, DR

Section 143(3)

…to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the Department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. In the instant case, in response to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2016, the AR of the assessee filed a written submission dated 26.12.2016 before the AO stating the following : “With reference to the Report of DDIT (Inv.) Unit 1(2), Kolkata we have been directed by th…

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

…ing judicial pronouncements: i) 257 Taxman 440 (SC) Pr. Cit v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex affirmed the judgment in the case of Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex reported in 253 Taxman 135 (Guj) ii) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT iii) 245 ITR 160 (MP) CIT v. Metachem Industries iv) 252 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…

ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Consultshah Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6893/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeed Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S Consultshah 12(1)(4), Room No. 145A, Vs. Financial Services Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., 426, 4Th Floor, Road, Churchgate, Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Mumbai-400020. Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aadcc3362K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, Ars Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…h prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in the case of Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. We find that in the instant case, the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid. The onus shifted to the department. The AO has not made required investigation to find out the genuineness of transaction. In the case of Chain House International (P.) Ltd. (supra), during the assessment pr…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tablish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as succinctly held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In the instant case, as found by the AO subsequently, when notices u/s 13…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

A.J.M. and Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4567/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S A.J.M. & Co. 801, Dy. Cit-15(1)(1), Panchratna Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm0310R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, DR

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

…sh prima facie his M/s AJM & Co. 8 case, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. We find that the AO incomplete disregard to the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings mentioned by him at para 4.3 of the assessment order and without a finding that the party who gave the statement before the Director of Income Tax (Inv…

Shri Jaipal Singh Mahalawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 365/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Transaction

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain (Adv) &For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)

…er has any doubt he could have made investigation with the respective parties to take his finding to an logical end. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP H.C.), Hon’ble Chhatisgarh High Court decision in the case of CIT, Bilaspur Vs Abdul Aziz in ITA No. 19 of 2014 dated 14/02/2012. Reliance was also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: ITA 365/JP/2018_ 4 Jaipal Singh Mahalawat Vs. ITO a. CIT, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) b. M/s. Pragya Tendu…

Ritu Kamal Singhal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3017/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)

…urt) iv. CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC) and Anis Ahmed 297 ITR 441 (SC) that mere nonproduction of the lender/shareholder cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68. v. Similarly as held in the case of CIT v. Metachom Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 [MP] where a credit is shown to have come from a person other than the assessee, there is no further responsibility of the assessee to show that it has come from accounted source of the lender, as long as the fact that he had made the advance and was capable of making the advance are established. : 9 : vi. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lotus Grih Nirman P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3998/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 8(2)(2), M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Room No. 212/216A, 2Nd Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 419, Laxmi Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate, Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400059. Pan No. Aabcl0864D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

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

…sh prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in the decision in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. However, we find that the AO has failed in the instant case to find fault with the submissions made by the assessee. The AO could have made investigations to find out the truth of the case. On the other hand, the AO has resorted to general propositions. To sum up, in the instant case, the AO has failed to draw any…

Shabd Prakash Lath, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 44ASection 68Section 80C

…such additions. The Ld.AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Chhatishgarh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abdul Aziz (2012) 251 CTR 58 (C.G) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160. The Ld. AR further 4 submitted that the reliance of the decision of the Tribunal in case of Kushal Prasad Manhar vs. ITO order dated 30.07.2009 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court as mentioned by the CIT(A) in his order, is not at all applicable and has distinguishing factors. The Ld. AR pointed out following distinguishing factors:-…

ITO 1(2)(4), Mumbai vs. P.G. Exim P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 747/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The I.T.O. 1(2)(4), M/S P.G. Exim Pvt. Ltd., 536, Aayakarbhavan, 18, Premkutir (Ground Floor), M.K. Road, 177, Babubhaichirar Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp02224R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) Revenue By : Shri Prakash Jotwani (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani (AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

…appellant claimed that he had already filed the details before the AO. Now also he has filed it before me. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that respectfully following the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Metachem Inds 2000 245 ITR 160 where it is held that the loan taken by cheque and same confirmed by the creditors and creditors themselves assessed to tax credit has to be accepted as genuine by the department. In the instant case, the appellant company has discharged the duty of filing a copy of income tax return, confirmation letter and other bank details and therefore, I di…

M/S Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…M/s. Kamal Rayon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward.1(1)(3)/SRT/I.T.A. No. 161/SRT/2018/A.Y.12-13 Page 1 of 24 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, , , , लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.161/SRT/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Kamal Rayon Private Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1) (3), Surat. 1003, New Sardar Traders Market, Sahara Darwaja, Surat-395010 [PAN: AAMCS 3194 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओ…

M/S Anjani Associates, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

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

ITA 27/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 68

…ial onus, the assessee is not required to prove the genuineness of the transaction as between its creditor and that of the creditors’ source of income i.e. the sub-creditors. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Metachem Industries, (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP). (ii) CIT vs. Abdul Aziz, (2012) 251 CTR 58 (C.G.). (iii) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). (iv) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal, (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.). (v) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO, (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj.). (vi) ITO vs. Shri Koushal Agarwal, ITA No.220/BLPR/2010 (ITAT Raipur). (vi) ITO vs. Gauram Prasad Nishad, ITA No…

The ITO, Ward - 3(2)(2), Surat vs. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Bhadani, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 585/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Respondent: 2. Ground No. 1 to 4 states that Ld. CIT (A) erred in

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

…nk accounts. The assessee has also placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC)/ 25 Taxman 80(SC) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/ [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj), CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP):161 CTR 444 (MP): [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP), Nemichand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254/ 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati), CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 81 CCH 193 Guj-HC Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331(Raj.) in support of his contentions. In view of these facts and circumstances, the CIT (A) held that as per ITO 3(2)(2) Surat v. Po…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 178/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 178/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 cuke Income Tax Officer, M/s Land Mark Dealers (P) Ltd., 411, 3rd Floor, Shalimar Complex, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jaipur. Church Road, M.I. Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL 2002 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k@C.O. No. 18/JP/2015 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 177/JP/2015…