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.

47

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 68Section 144Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsource of sourceaddition under section 68section 263(1)lack of enquirysection 194asundry creditors

Judgments citing CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

M/S. Shanti Sarup & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

ITA 2374/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Munish Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ears. It is proved from Schedule - 3 of the audited balance sheet explaining break-up of the unsecured loans lying at page 108 of the paper book. 13 ITA No.2374/Del./2013 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment cited as CIT 19. vs. Parmeshwar Bohra – 301 ITR 404 while deciding the identical issue held that carry forward amount of the previous years did not become an investment or cash credit generated from the relevant assessment year and as such, advantage of carry forward unsecured loan cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act. So, ground no.3 is also determined in favour of the assessee. 20. In view of what h…

Suryapraksh G. Agarwal, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 22(3), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5779/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5779/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Suryaprakash G. The Acit, Circle 22(3), बनाम/ Agarwal, Mumbai Vs. Sunny Real Estate Consultants, Arenja Corner, Sec-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-40 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpa 7894B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Dr P. Danial Shri Love Kumar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Dr P. Danial
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…held that since the credit balance in the accounts of the assessee did not pertain to the year under consideration, the AO was not justified in making the additions. A similar view was taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Prameshwar Bohara 301 ITR 404 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the carried forward amount for the previous year did not become an investment or cash credit generated during the impugned assessment year. 7. The reference made to the above judicial decisions no doubt relates to the quantum proceedings and the assessee has not preferred any appeal against the quantu…

Asst CIT 20(1), Mumbai vs. J & B Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7530/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: - 2009-10 Acit-20(1), Vs.` M/S J & B Industries Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, 211, Inique House, Chakala Piramel Chamber, Parel, Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. Aacfj6383C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta Respondent By Shri Paresh Shaparia Date Of Hearing 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2016

Section 68

…l further submitted that the addition u/s 68 of the Act could only be made if any sum was found to be credited in the Books of Accounts during the year and not in respect of earlier years by placing reliance on the decision of the ld.CIT Vs Prameshwar Bohra ) 301 ITR 404. The ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the appeal after examining the necessary confirmations and tax audit report of the assessee. As regards the interest of Rs. 2,84,304/- the ld. Counsel submitted that all these details were furnished to the AO at the time of the assessment proceeding. Besides there were also contained in the Annexure to the Audi…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Kaushalendra Agarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2749/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms Richa Rastogi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…said outstanding balances of the creditors. He also submitted that if a sum is credited in the books of accounts in previous assessment years, the same cannot be taxed in any assessment year other than that year. Reliance is placed on CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404 HC(Rajasthan) and Usha Stud 301 ITR-HC (Del.). He also argued that opening balance of the purchases, purchases made during the year and the payments made to the parties from whom the purchases were made had been accepted by the AO. Further, the books of accounts were audited which were accepted by the AO. It was submitted that the AO was not just…

M/S Habib Proteins & Fats Extracts, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Habib Proteins & Fats Extracts, C/O. N.K.Agro Oil (P) Ltd., No.63/1, Iii Floor, Mosque Road Cross, Frazer Town, Bangalore-560 052; … Appellant Pan: Aadfh6338K Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…er perspective. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384(Del) and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra (2008)301 ITR 404(Raj) in support of his contention. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has not given all the details before the AO and has filed confirmation letters of only a few parties before the CIT(A) who called for a remand report on the same from the AO.…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA-783/2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…on the basis on which the addition was deleted. His submission was that the mischief of Section 68 is attracted where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee for the relevant previous year. In CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra, 301 ITR 404 (Raj.), it has been held that the rigors of Section 68 of the Act are not attracted to the opening balance at the beginning of the year. In the instant case, the amount of Rs.49,41,030/- was received by the respondent-assessee on account of payment for sale of shares in earlier years, i.e., in satisfaction of 2009:DHC:5679-DB amounts d…

Commissioner of Income T Ax Delhi II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA - 783 / 2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…on the basis on which the addition was deleted. His submission was that the mischief of Section 68 is attracted where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee for the relevant previous year. In CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra, 301 ITR 404 (Raj.), it has been held that the rigors of Section 68 of the Act are not attracted to the opening balance at the beginning of the year. In the instant case, the amount of Rs.49,41,030/- was received by the respondent-assessee on account of payment for sale of shares in earlier years, i.e., in satisfaction of 2009:DHC:5679-DB amounts d…