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

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

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

ITA 177/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

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. 177/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2005-06 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. 17/JP/2015 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 177/JP/2015…

Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in I

ITA 858/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…epted through banking channel as well once identity of the lender is proved beyond doubt addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot made as held in following judgments :- a) CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). b) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) c) Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd Vs. CIT (2006) 283 ITR 377 (Rajsthan) d) Rajat Capital Market Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014) 24 ITJ 219 (Indore) The appellant discharged the burden casted upon him and he was not required to prove source of source of loan received from M/s. K & Co. as held in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investments P. Ltd. (2011…

Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in I

ITA 857/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2018AY 2005-06

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 234BSection 69C

…d to prove the amount credited in the books of account and as such it would be assessed in the hands of the partners as unexplained investment." 23. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 has held as under: "Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee is over. Whether that person is an income-tax payer or not and where he had brought this money from, is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a satis…

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Modern Laboratories, Indore

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 277/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

…Tania Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 322 ITR 394 (Bombay), CIT v. Varinder Rawley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H), CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del), ACIT v. Pravin Mittal [2016] 28 ITJ 473 (Trib-Indore), CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP):161 CTR DCIT v 1(1) v Modern Laboratories / I. T. A. No. 277/Ind/2014& CO.No.16/Ind/2014/AY:08-09 Page 21 of 29 444 (MP) : [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP), were cited and special attention was drawn in the case of CIT v. Pithampur Conzima (P) Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 442 (MP) wherein it was held that where in appeal before the Tribunal, the assesse…

DCIT, Circle-33, Kolkata vs. M/S. India Docking & Engineering Co., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2169/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 68

…e are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law and rightly held that the deposits shown in its accounts were satisfactorily explained.” I find that the Hon’ble High Court, Madhya Pradesh in CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) deleted the addition of partners capital and held that – “where the assessee-firm had explained the credits standing in the name of its partners, the responsibility of the assessee stands discharged. Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of t…

Late Shri Sanjay Paliya Through L/H Smt. Jaishree Paliya, Pipariya vs. The DCIT, Circle, Itarsi

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

ITA 922/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2017AY 2012-13

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

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…iness of the lender was clearly established. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts including the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries; 245 ITR 160(MP), decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Company vs. ITO; (2010) 187 Taxman 338(Raj.) and submitted that the assessee submitted confirmation, copy of bank statement, Late shri Sanjay Paliya ITA 922/Ind/2016 Adhar card, copy of account in the books of the assessee and an important fact that Smt. Parvati Ba…

M/S. Hero'S Education and Welfare Society, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 232/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 68

…rs are income tax assessees and have confirmed the transactions and have also explained the source of source. Therefore, under no circumstances, the addition can be made in view of the judgement of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 and Pithampur Coetza, 240 ITR 442 (M.P.). The Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further submitted that even otherwise if the claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) or Section 11 is considered, all the income would be exempt, since it has been applied for the object of the society. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further submit…

Smt. Preeti Garg, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2184/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…eque copy and bank account copy; copy of citation of CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava 208 Taxman 35 (Gujarat); Sagalchand P. Ananda vs. ACIT (ITA No. 80/Rjt/2013) ITAT- Rajkot); Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guwahat); CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP); Gurukul Trust vs. ADIT vs (ITA No. 723/Del/2012) ITAT- Delhi; DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) and power of attorney (in original), which were not properly considered by the authorities below. I further find that Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the non- speaking impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. There…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 68

…68 of the Act. To support his contention, he relied upon the following case laws:- i) 151 ITR 150 (pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Agarwal ii) 168 ITR 493 (Cal) Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. vs. CIT iii) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. P Ltd. iv) 245 ITR 160 (MP) CIT vs. Metachem Industries v) 136 Taxman 213 (Gau( Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT vi) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO vii) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) viii) CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. 177 Taxman 331 (Del.) ix) CIT vs. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 35 (Del.) x) AY 1996-97 dated 11.5.2013 in the case…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3376/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…un Puri who has also owned up the transaction by filing confirmation. Therefore, the primary onus cast on the appellant is discharged. In this connection reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160, relevant extract from which is reproduced hereunder: - "4………………….once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee-firm is over. The assessee- firm cannot ask that person who makes investment whether the money invested is properly taxed or…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3375/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3377/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, Central Circle-13, New Delhi A-1/36, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (Pan:Afypp9110K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ditors could have acquired the money deposited with him and, therefore, addition under s. 68 cannot be sustained in the absence of anything to establish that the sources of the creditors' deposits flew from the assessee itself" d) CIT vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 (MP) "4 once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee-firm is over. The assessee-firm cannot ask that person who makes investment whether the money invested is 18 properly taxed or not. The assessee is only to explain that this investment…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Anand Jewellers, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4583/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)

…ed as undisclosed income in the hands of the firm. If the AO doubted the genuineness of the source of the partners, he should have considered the same in the hands of the partners only and not in the hands of the firm." • In CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP), it was held: "Once the firm has satisfactorily explained that the credit entries in the name of 10 ITA No.4583/Del./2011 partners represents the amount invested by them the burden of proof stood discharged and the amount cannot be treated as income of the firm under s. 68." • In Smt Shanta Devi vs. CIT (1998) 171 ITR 532 (P&H), it was held…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Usha Kapoor, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross

ITA 1949/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Usha Kapoor, Circle 36(1), New Delhi G-87, Preet Vihar, Delhi-92 (Pan:Ahepk8691A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Tandon, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Usha Kapoor, Circle 36(1), New Delhi G-87, Preet Vihar, Delhi-92 (PAN:AHEPK8691A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 224/Del/2012 (IN ITA NO. 1949/DEL/2012) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Usha Kapoor, vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 36(1) G-87, Preet Vihar, Delhi-92 New Delhi (PAN:AHEPK8691A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. R.K. Tandon, CA Date…

Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana vs. ITO, Fatehabad

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

ITA 1542/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.1542/Del./2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Banwari Lal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2, S/O Shri Bishan Dass, Fatehabad. 31, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Distt. Fatehabad.

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Peeyush Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR

Section 68

…l and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del) (iii) Mod Creation (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 354 ITR 282 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs Mayawati 338 ITR 563 (Del) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (vii) CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) (viii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (x) Dwarikadhish Sugar Industries vs. ITO 149 TTJ 401 (TM) In view of the above submissions, the ld. AR pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT (A) be set aside and the ground taken in the appeal be allowed. 8. The learned DR relied upo…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S D.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…in CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC) and Anis Ahmed 297 ITR 441 (SC) that mere non-production of the lender/shareholder cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68. 4.3.6. Similarly as held in the case of CIT v. Metachem 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. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Ha…