How many judgments cite CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra (301 ITR 404), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 144, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 133(6).

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

301 ITR 404High Court2008#2444 most cited

What is CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra authority for?

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra · 301 ITR 404 · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained money · earlier assessment year · brought forward balance · subsequent assessment year · addition u/s 68 · sundry creditors

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 144 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 44af section 262 trade creditors inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 non application of mind source of source addition under section 68 section 263(1)lack of enquiry section 194a sundry creditors

Judgments citing CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 422/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar. 3.3. That the addition of alleged peak balance of Rs.9,18,54,176/- on protective basis is liable to be deleted as the same has not been shown to be credited during the AY 2006-07. Aspect of opening balance has not been considered. Refer 301 ITR 404 (Raj) CIT vs Parmeshwar Bohra. 3.4. That the said addition as made of Rs 9,18,54,176/- on protective basis is not sustainable as the Ld. AO has not specified the provisions of the Act under which such addition is made. 3.5. That the assessments being complete u/s 143(3) or 143(1) there was no jurisdiction to make the assessment u/s 153A nor to ma…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 421/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 420/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 418/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 417/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

ACIT Centtral -2 Indore, Indore vs. M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd, Indore

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

ITA 13/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…for the year under consideration and not in respect of opening balances appearing in the books of accounts of any year. While holding so I find support from the decision of the Honourable High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT V/s Parmeshwar Bohra (2007) 301 ITR 404 wherein it is held that a carry forward amount of the previous year does not become a cash credit generated during the relevant year and therefore, cannot be taxed u/s 68 in a year in which the amount is not actually received by the assessee. Similarly the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008)…

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 10/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke Rameshwar Prasad Shringi Pr. CIT, Vs. 1-B 1-B, Kotri Road Udaipur Gumanpura, Kota, Rajasthan LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AGWPS2257F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls…

Shri Mukesh Kumar, Jagadhari vs. ITO-Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 40/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.40/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, The Ito, बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, Ward-2, 179, Bank Road, Yamunanagar Ambala Cantt. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Agdpk9371P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69

…i 5 credited. To substantiate his contention, the Ld. counsel relied on the the following cases. a. CIT versus Usha Stud agricultural Farm ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) b. CIT versus J. J. Development (P) Ltd. ITA519/2008 (Calcutta) c. CIT versus Parmeshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan) d. Nirmal Ronnie versus DCIT policy ID No. 1075/Chd. /2013 (Chandigarh tribunal) 6. In view of the submissions and the ratio laid down by the hon’ble High Courts and the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases, the Ld. counsel submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not in accordance with the ratio laid d…

DCIT 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Blbir Metals and Power Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7870/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Co No. 59/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 7870/Mum/2019) A.Y 2010-11 Dcit – 6(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Balbir Metals & Room No. 506, 5Th Power Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 423, Nav Vyapar Mk Road, Mumbai. Bhavan, Pd Mello Road Carnac Bunder, Masjid East, Mumbai – 400009. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0452D Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Shri Chandra Vijay, Dr Appellant By : Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ca Ar Date Of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objections . First, We Shall Take Up The Revenue Appeal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssessment year under appeal when the share application money has been received in Financial ITA No. 7870/Mum/2019&CO.59/Mum/2021 M/s Balbir Metals and Power Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Years 2009-10 and 2010-11." 4.9 In the case of CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra reported in 301 ITR 404, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court had decided that "The Tribunal has categorically come to a finding, and that finding is not under challenge, that this is not a case of cash credit entered in the books of account of the assessee during the year but it is a case in which the assessee has invested the capital in the business and this amount was shown…

Sh. Rajneesh Thakur, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-VII, Ludhiana

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1565/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1565/Chd/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriSudhirSehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriAtulJayaswal, Sr. Dr

Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…f advances received in the year itself and not that received in earlier years. •Dy. CIT v. Amod Petrochem (P.)Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 265 (Guj.) •CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384/[2009] 183 Taxman 277 (Delhi) •CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohra, 301 ITR 404, Rajasthan High Court •Mahabir Prasad Prem Chand Jain v. ITO [1988] 40 Taxman 35 (Mag.)(Delhi) •Nuchem Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 87 TTJ 166 (Delhi - Trib.) 1565-Chd/2018- Rajneesh Thakur, Ludhiana 11 •Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.'s case [2008] 24 SOT 393 (Delhi) •ACIT Vs. Smt. N. Sasikala 92 TTJ 1196 (Chennai) (Trib.) It was also pointed out that…

SHI vs. U Canadian Clear Waters Ltd., Chennai

In the result the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 797/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ बी ’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस .गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 797/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Shivsu Canadian Clear Waters Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), (Old Name: M/s. Shivsu Canadian Clear Chennai. International Ltd), No. 6B2, II Floor, Parivakkam Road, Leelavathy Nagar, Senneerkuppam, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. [PAN: AAICS 2574C] (अपीलाथ"/Appella…

Janardan Nath, Dhenkanal vs. ITO, Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.37/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Janardan Nath, Vs. Ito, Dhenkanal Ward, Chandan Bazar, Dhenkanal Dhenkanal स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Abcpn 4137 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…he submissions made before the lower authorities and he also relied on the paper books filed in two sets, one containing page Nos.1 to 34 and another containing page Nos.1 to 22 and also relied on the following case laws :- i) CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohra, [2008] 301 ITR 404 (Raj); and ii) Shri Abhaya Charan Biswal Vs. ITO, ITA No.259/CTK/2017, order dated 20.09.2017 Further, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee to substantiate his claim has submitted copies of income tax returns for A.Y.2004-2005 to 2008- 2009 and 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 along with a capital account starting as on 31.03.1999 to 31.03.2013 for the s…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Akash Farms Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1482/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Shabana Parveen

Section 143(3)Section 68

…y stated the loans having already been accepted in the past, the Assessing Officer could not insist on the above to proof in this assessment year. In the case of CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (301 ITR 384) (Delhi HC) and CIT Vs. Parameshwar Vora, (301 ITR 404) (Rajasthan HC), it was held that opening balances of earlier year could not be subject matter of investigation under section 68 of the Act. Respectfully following the above decisions and facts of the present case, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.4,26,08,528/- made by him. These grounds of appeal are allowed.” Sources of Funds of the…

Dayananda Pai vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 456/BANG/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jan 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year :1998-99

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 140ASection 143Section 148Section 234Section 234ASection 234B

…he AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is not justified and hence the same should be deleted. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. The ld. AR of assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements. A) CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohra, 301 ITR 404(Raj) B) CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd., 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) C) CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd., 236 ITR 518 (SC) 6. The ld. DR of revenue placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC). 7. We have considered the rival submissions…

Abn Tower & Transmission Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1519/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abn Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aajcs 4837 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

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

…. 1931/Kol/2016 dated 27.7.2018 had held as under:- “9. As held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. reported in 301 ITR 384 as well as by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Bohra reported in 301 ITR 404, the amount received by the assessee in the earlier year and not in the year under consideration and duly credited in the books of account of the assessee for such earlier year cannot be added under section 68 as unexplained cash credit for the year under consideration. In our opinion, the ratio of the said two judicial pronouncements is squarely…

I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Sankhuwala Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1973/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1973/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito Ward 1(4) Kolkata................................…………………………................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Sankhuwala Commercial Pvt. Ltd....................………………………………….Respondent 8/1, Princep Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 072. [Pan: Aaecs 8688 P] Appearances By: Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 3, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 27, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 1, Kolkata Dated 14.07.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 54.70 Crores Made By The A.O. By Treating The Share Capital & Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (B), KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 1973/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 ITO Ward 1(4) Kolkata................................…………………………................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, 7th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. M/s. Sankhuwala Commercial Pvt. Ltd....................………………………………….Respondent 8/1, Princep Street, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 072. [PAN: AAECS 8688 P] Appearances by: Md. Usman, CIT(DR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate appearing on…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Paramic Goods Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1931/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1931/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit Circle 1(2) Kolkata................................…………………………..............................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, R. No. 14, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Paramic Goods Pvt. Ltd....................…………………………………………………Respondent 8/1, Princep Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aaecp 5636 Q] Appearances By: Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 3, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 27, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 1, Kolkata Dated 13.07.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 54.35 Crores Made By The A.O. By Treating The Share Capital & Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (B), KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 1931/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT Circle 1(2) Kolkata................................…………………………..............................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, R. No. 14, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/s. Paramic Goods Pvt. Ltd....................…………………………………………………Respondent 8/1, Princep Street, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. [PAN: AAECP 5636 Q] Appearances by: Md. Usman, CIT(DR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate appearing on be…

I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Jellotic Supply Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1972/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

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

Section 144Section 147Section 263Section 68

…ring these to tax in previous year 2004-05 relevant to assessment year 2005-06. The appellant's A. R has also relied upon judgements of the High Courts in the case of CIT vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) and in CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan) for the proposition that where a sum was found credited in earlier years but additions were made in subsequent year, it was clearly held that same amount of share capital which is coming as opening balance being brought forward from earlier year cannot be added in later year u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. On considerin…

ACIT, Vellore vs. Ramulu Mani, Vaniambadi

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

ITA 690/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 690/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Ramulu Mani, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. No. 671, Munisamy Mudali Street, Vellore. Khaderpet, Vaniyambadi 635 601. [Pan:Aippm4874M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Gopal, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 23.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K. Gopal, C.A

Section 68

…elying on the decisions of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd (ITA No;151/2008 dated 14-03-2008 Delhi High Court (301 ITR 384) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Prameshwar Bohra (ITA No:7/2003 dated 04-01-2007 Rajasthan High Court (301 ITR 404), the said sum of Rs.47,90,000/- cannot be considered for addition under section 68 of Income tax Act, 1961 and therefore this addition is deleted. (2) The credit of Rs.5,00,000/- on 30-01-2010 was received by means of Cheque No: 002748 from Current account No.73460 of Shri A.Senthil Murugan and it also appears in the Bank account of the assessee…

ACIT, Circle - 1, Burdwan vs. Burdwan Central Cooperative Agricultural Production & Marketing Society Ltd., Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1007/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, Burdwan.............................………………………….........................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound Burdwan. Burdwan Central Co-Op. Agricultural Production & Marketing Society Ltd.………………………………………………............................................................Respondent Memari, Burdwan [Pan: Aaccb3520D] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.C. Mondal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 13, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) Asansol Dated 19.02.2010. 2. In Ground No 1 To 4, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit (A) In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A) Of The Act In Respect Of Bank Commission, Handling Charges, Insurance Charges & Drying Charges. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Cooperative Society Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Letting Out Of Warehouse & Trading In Agricultural Equipments, Fertilizers & Other Articles For The Purpose Of Supplying Them To Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Year

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80B(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 1007/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, Burdwan.............................………………………….........................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound Burdwan. Burdwan Central Co-op. Agricultural Production & Marketing Society Ltd.………………………………………………............................................................Respondent Memari, Burdwan [PAN: AACCB3520D] Appearances by: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri N.C. Mondal, FCA appea…