CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain

205 CTR 444High Court2006#2112 most cited

What is CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain authority for?

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit or outstanding trade creditors, especially when the genuineness of the purchases is accepted by the department.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain · Section 68 · trade creditors · purchases on credit · sundry creditors · cash credit addition · genuineness of purchases · Section 145(3) · creditworthiness · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

156 Taxmann 507

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 115BBESection 131

Issues it is cited on

trade creditorssection 44afsection 262sundry creditorsinadequate enquirycreditworthiness of the creditoraddition under section 68revision u/s 263non application of mindlack of enquirysection 263(1)rejection of books of account

Judgments citing CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1114 & 1115/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 cuke Govindam BRJ Projects Private The ACIT/DCIT, Vs. Limited Circle-6, Jaipur. Plot No. 718, Flat No. 201, Anupam Apartment, Gopalpura Bypass, Mahaveer Nagar, jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECG9877G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee…

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 405/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke M/s Stanford Developers Income Tax Officer Vs. Near R.C. Motors Ward, Janaksinghpura, Behror Neemrana, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACHFS3932Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. & Miss Twin…

MANGILAL,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 269/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mangilal, Vs. Ito, Pro: Chagan Agencies, Ward – 2(4), #138, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Apmc Yard, Mysore. Bandipalya, Mysore. Pan : Ackpm 3943 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 40Section 68

…e purchases as genuine, the other limb of the same transaction being a trade creditors cannot be doubted or no addition could be made on this count. For this purpose, he relied on the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pancham Dass Jain (205 CTR 444) and for the same purpose, he also relied on the order of the coordinate bench in the case of Smt. Madhu Solanki in ITA No.974/Bang/2009 dated 9.8.2021, wherein held as under: "14. We have heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. The undisputed fact is that the assessing officer has made addition of outstanding trade creditor…

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

…hich is a deeming provision, is applicable only when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee and the assessee is not able to explain the nature and source of such credit. We rely upon:  Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (205 CTR 444, has held that the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act are not attracted to the amounts representing purchases made on credit.  Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Tewari (220 Taxman 141, has held that where the assessee had made payments to the creditors through cheques, merely because some creditors had not confirmed the…

DAURAU FARM LLP,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshdaurau Farm Llp, Vs. Acit, C-96, First Floor Khirki Central Circle-Ii, Extention, South Delhi, Noida Malviya Nagar, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aapfd6458G Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

…is regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Kulwinder Singh reported in 99 taxmann.com 449 (P&H HC) and the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Pancham Dass Jain reported in 205 CTR 444 (All). The Learned CITA in Para 6.6 of his order observed that the onus of 9. proving the genuineness of purchases is on the assessee and since the same was not done by the assessee, the addition of incremental creditors had been rightly made by the Learned AO. Having observed that, the Learned CITA proceeded to reject the books of accounts of t…

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

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

ITA 368/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 199CSection 250Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nINDORE BENCH, INDORE\nBEFORE SH. BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 368/Ind/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\nPiyush Jain, 43, Ramchandra\nBagar Extension, Indore\nMadhya Pradesh - 452009\n[PAN: AFWPJ 2204G]\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer-4(4),\nIndore, ITO, Indore\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by : Sh. Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, ARs\nRespondent by : Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. D. R.\nDate of Hearing : 27.01.2025\nDate of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025\nORDER\nPer Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:\nThis appeal is…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HIRA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5028/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhriassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.126, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Hira Technologies Private Limited Plot No.1, Part-Ii, Khed City Taluka Khed, Rajgurunagar Pune, Dta Village, ……………. Respondent Khanesar, Pune – 410505 Pan: Aabch2291N

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SanghviFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…for the construction of the road. The amounts in question represented purchases made on credits. The provisions of Section 68 of the Act are clearly not attracted to amount representing purchases made on credits, as is also held in 'CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain', 205 CTR 444 (All). The assessee raised this issue by way of written submissions (APB 37 to 160, relevant portion at para-5, on page 43) dated 10.05.2014 filed before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has, however, not addressed this grievance at all and merely upheld the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. On behalf of the assessee, a comparative chart of ne…

ITO 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 3638/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito 13(1)(1), Mumbai Nirmit Mercantile Private Limited

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, SR. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…t creditor cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ritu Anurag Agarwal (2009) (7) TMI 1247, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Pancham Das Jain 205 CTR 444 and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs 5 Nirmit Mercantile Private Limited A.Y. 2014-15 Kulwinder Singh (2017) (7) TMI 957. He held that assessee has satisfactorily explained the identity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was allowed. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer i…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." ii) 205 CTR 444 (All) CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain 3. We have heard Shri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 84 He submitted that as the respondent-assessee was unable to produce the alleged creditors the provisions of s. 68 of the Act was squarely attracted in the present case and t…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." ii) 205 CTR 444 (All) CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain 3. We have heard Shri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 84 He submitted that as the respondent-assessee was unable to produce the alleged creditors the provisions of s. 68 of the Act was squarely attracted in the present case and t…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." ii) 205 CTR 444 (All) CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain 3. We have heard Shri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 84 He submitted that as the respondent-assessee was unable to produce the alleged creditors the provisions of s. 68 of the Act was squarely attracted in the present case and t…

MARULASIDAPPA GUNDAGATHI DYAMAVVANAHALLI,,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 898/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AParithivel, D.R
Section 142Section 234Section 250Section 68

…e purchases as genuine, the other limb of the same transaction being a trade creditors cannot be doubted or no addition could be made on this count. For this purpose, he relied on the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pancham Dass Jain (205 CTR 444) and for the same purpose, he also relied on the order of the coordinate bench in the case of Smt. Madhu Solanki in ITA No.974/Bang/2009 dated 9.8.2021, wherein held as under: Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere Page 5 of 7 “14. We have heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. The undisputed fact is that the a…

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1443/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं/.ITA Nos.1442 & 1443/AHD/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.PAN/GIR No.: ADCPG 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Vinod…

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं/.ITA Nos.1442 & 1443/AHD/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.PAN/GIR No.: ADCPG 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Vinod…

VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

ITA 117/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Pr. CIT-1, Chavada, Plot No. 122, Rajkot GIDC-II, Behind: Jamwadi Vs (Respondent) Petrol Pump, Gondal, Rajkot-360311 PAN: AODPC1592G (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 16-03-2023 Date of pronouncement : 21-04-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y…

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

Section 40A(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.355/SRT/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The ITO, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAJFD3658A Appellant by Shri Mehul Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 22/03/2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 30/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY)…

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…puted. As such the amount of credit was not reflecting against any loans and advances from the parties. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in case of CIT vs. Pancham Das Jain reported in 156 Taxman 507/205 CTR 444, where it was held as under: The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidence on record that the said amounts represented the purchases made by the assessee on credit and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 could not be attracted in the instant case. The view taken by the Tribunal was c…

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…puted. As such the amount of credit was not reflecting against any loans and advances from the parties. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in case of CIT vs. Pancham Das Jain reported in 156 Taxman 507/205 CTR 444, where it was held as under: The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidence on record that the said amounts represented the purchases made by the assessee on credit and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 could not be attracted in the instant case. The view taken by the Tribunal was c…

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…puted. As such the amount of credit was not reflecting against any loans and advances from the parties. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in case of CIT vs. Pancham Das Jain reported in 156 Taxman 507/205 CTR 444, where it was held as under: The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidence on record that the said amounts represented the purchases made by the assessee on credit and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 could not be attracted in the instant case. The view taken by the Tribunal was c…

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…puted. As such the amount of credit was not reflecting against any loans and advances from the parties. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in case of CIT vs. Pancham Das Jain reported in 156 Taxman 507/205 CTR 444, where it was held as under: The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidence on record that the said amounts represented the purchases made by the assessee on credit and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 could not be attracted in the instant case. The view taken by the Tribunal was c…

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (205 CTR 444) — Cited in 55 Judgments | BharatTax