CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.

208 ITR 465High Court1994#168 most cited

What is CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

427

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. · Section 68 · cash credit · burden of proof · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · unexplained money · confirmatory letters · banking channel transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 1961Section 131

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorpaper companysource of sourceshare capital and share premiumlive linkshare application moneyentry operatorsection 251(1)(a)addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaddition under section 68borrowed satisfaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District CIT-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAM3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri B. Srinivas, C…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kennigton Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8380/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito, 9(2)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Kennington Fabric P. Ltd बिधम/ M.K Road, 3-A, Panchsheel, Flat No. 103, Mumbai-400 020. Raheja Township, Malad (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 097. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabck6503A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Shivratan Singrodia &
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…ugh the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that he had wrongly deleted the addition made by the A.O. The ld. D.R in support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Jansampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 373 (Del). Per contra, the ld. Authorised representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee relied on the order of 10 ITO vs. Kennington Fabric P. Ltd. the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) du…

Manish Chand Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 40, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ax. The tax deducted as source has duly been 10 I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manish Chand Agarwal deposited. The judgment in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 465 relied upon by Mr. Bhowmick does not really assist him. The aforesaid judgment is an authority for the proposition that mere payment by account payee cheque cannot establish that the transaction was genuine, but in the case before us, besides the fact that payment was made by cheque, there are other pieces of evidence available which are as follo…

Manish Chand Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 40, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 371/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ax. The tax deducted as source has duly been 10 I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manish Chand Agarwal deposited. The judgment in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 465 relied upon by Mr. Bhowmick does not really assist him. The aforesaid judgment is an authority for the proposition that mere payment by account payee cheque cannot establish that the transaction was genuine, but in the case before us, besides the fact that payment was made by cheque, there are other pieces of evidence available which are as follo…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…riental Wire Industries P. Ltd. vs. CIT 131 ITR 688 (Cal) 9 M/s. Jasamrit Constructions P. Ltd. x. CIT vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal) xi. M.A. Unneeri Kutti vs. CIT 198 ITR 147 (Ker) xii. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal) xiii. CIT vs. Nova Promotors & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del) xiv. Independent Media (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 14 (Del) xv. CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 218/Del.2012 xvi. CIT vs. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 263 CTR 456 (Del) xvii. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del) xviii. CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Anr.…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…

Kajal Kumar Roy, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

Section 131Section 68

…al burden is on the assessee to prove the identity of the 12 I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 Kajal Kumar Roy creditor, the capacity of the creditor to advance the loan and the genuineness of the transaction. In CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal), the Tribunal deleted the additions on the ground that the transactions were through banking channels and hence they were presumed as genuine. Setting aside the tribunal’s order, the Hon’ble High Court held that: “It is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. M…

Harsh Saluja, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 165/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 251(2)Section 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 165/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Harsh Saluja ITO, -3 (2), Mathura. 86C, Krishna Nagar, Mathura. PAN No.AYRPS3957K (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Navin Gargh, AR Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 21.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 01.12.2017 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, raising the following grounds: “1.1 BECAUSE in any view, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 3,30,471/- and further enh…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elegant Security Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6173/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…s were not filed before A.O. The income declared by assessee and the share applicant companies were very small. Therefore, addition was correctly made by the A.O. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions. i. CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd., (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) ii. CIT vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) iii. CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del.) iv. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del.). v. Mukesh Shah vs. ITO (2012) 246 CTR 82 (Jharkhand) vi. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd., (2013) 263…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…/ situations of the case [Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846, 851, 852 (Gauh)]. - . Mere payment by A/c Payee Cheque is not sacrosanct it would not make otherwise non- genuine transaction genuine. CIT Vis. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal). Even in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Vis JCIT upheld by SC 288 ITR 10 (SC), Hon'ble ITAT had held that even Account Payee Cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. In the case of CIT Vs Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del), it was held that since the assessee, despite several opportunities granted,…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…

DCIT, CC-Xix, Kolkata vs. Ramshila Enterprises Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1551/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Ratan Modi, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…capital amounting to Rs.38.87 crores without appreciating the fact that the mode of payment cannot be sacrosanct for treating a bogus transaction as a genuine one as the principle laid down by the judicial decision like (IT - VS. - Precison Finance Pvt. Ltd. [208 ITR 465 (Cal)] and Nizam Wool Agency 193 ITR 318 (All). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld (IT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition u/s.68 of the IT Act Act on account of share capital amounting to Rs.38.87 crores without appreciating the fact that the circumstances surrounding the transactions proved the tran…

ITO 26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Keyur Shailesh Sanghvi, Mumbai

ITA 2592/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2592/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Keyur S. Sanghvi
Section 148Section 69C

…ts have been made by the a/c payee cheque also does not make his claim as bonafide in view of the judicial pronouncement made by Hon'ble 10 I.T.A. No. 2592/Mum/2017 Keyur Shailesh Sanghvi Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 Cal. (1994). It was held that transaction through bank is not sufficient to prove a transaction as bonafide. Merely because the money is transferred through the bank account does not prove that the money is explained. It is essential to prove the creditworthiness of the persons or genuineness of the transactions. Merely furnishing of particulars…

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3021/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ces / situations of the case [Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846, 851, 852 (Gauh)]. - Mere payment by A/c Payee Cheque is not sacrosanct it would not make otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. CIT V/s. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal). - Even in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems V/s JCIT upheld by SC 288 ITR 10 (SC), Hon'ble ITAT had held that even Account Payee Cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. In the case of CIT Vs Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del), it was held that since the assessee, despite several opportunities granted…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 3859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamimyahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIMYAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos. 3859/M/2017 &3858/M/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Sejal Export (India) Vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2) DC-7221, Bharat Diamond R. No. 906, 9th Floor, Old Bourse, G Block BKC Bandra CGO Bldg Annexe M.K. RD. Mumbai. Pin: 400051 Mumbai. Pin: 400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFS7201B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by: Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing: 07.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Bharti (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) " CIT Vs W.J. Klarler & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial and Ind. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " Precision Finance Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) " Nizam Wood Agency Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT (198)) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Ind. (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal)…

Om Logistics Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4304/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiom Logistics Ltd. Acit 130, Transport Nagar, Circle-21 Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaaco4716C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Om Logistics Ltd. ACIT 130, Transport Nagar, Circle-21 Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACO4716C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashish Goel, CA. Respondent by : Smt. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2017 Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2017 O R D E R PER BEENA A. PILLAI, J.M : 1. The present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 26.06.2014 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-II, New Delhi for assessment year 2001…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…