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.

Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, Jashpur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 96/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito-2, Raigargh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, College Road, Dist : Jashpur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /10 /2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bilaspur, Dated 06.03.2018, On The Following Ground :- 1. Whether In The Facts & Circumstance & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On The Points Of The Law Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao By Ignoring The Facts As Brought On Record By The Ao That The Assessee Failed To Prove The Identity Of The Creditor, Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Of The Investor As Per The Parameters Of The Legal Provisions U/S 68 Of The Act? 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Decisions In The Following Lead Cases:- (I) Mcdowell & Company Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 22 Taxman 11 (Sc). (Ii) M/S Raj Mandir Estates Pvt Ltd Vs Pcit-Iii, Kolkata (Slp No. 22566-22567) Dated 09.01.2017. (Iii) Cit Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd., 208 Itr 465(Cal).

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…decisions in the following lead cases:- (i) Mcdowell and Company Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 22 Taxman 11 (SC). (ii) M/s Raj Mandir Estates Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT-III, Kolkata (SLP No. 22566-22567) dated 09.01.2017. (iii) CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd., 208 ITR 465(CAL). 2 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,82,161/- made by the AO being interest claimed on the unsecured loan of Rs. 6,43,00,000/-? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case on the points of the law Ld CIT(A) is justified in de…

Maruti Rub Plast P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7346/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7346/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Maruti Rub Plast Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O M. K. Bhatt & Co., Ward-16(2), 302, Triveni Complex, E-10-12, New Delhi Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcm4647P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10 .2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 134/2012 dated 21.12.2012  CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No(s). 195/2015 dated 07.12.2017 (SC)  CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal.)  CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.)  CIT Vs. N. Tarika Properties Investment 51 taxmann.com 387 (SC), we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/10/2022. (Kul Bharat) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 31/10/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. P…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…(GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj) affirmed by Han'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC) (xxxviii) Mc.Dowell & Co., Ltd V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…(GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj) affirmed by Han'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC) (xxxviii) Mc.Dowell & Co., Ltd V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…(GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj) affirmed by Han'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC) (xxxviii) Mc.Dowell & Co., Ltd V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)…

Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

…establish the genuineness of the transaction. Mere payment by account Payee Cheque is not sacrosanct and it will not make otherwise non- genuine transaction genuine as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (208 ITR 465). There is no doubt about the modus operandi of the penny stocks in general and about the fact that the appellant is a beneficiary of bogus LTCG on penny stock. In an economy where unaccounted income is a -big menace, tax evaders make all efforts to bring their unaccounted income back to their books of account, without paying any tax on the same.…

ITO 3(30(3), Mumbai vs. Solid Machinery Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5328/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 68

…blished. None of the three necessary ingredients of a credit, i.e. existence of the creditor, means of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction involved, are established on the facts of this case. In the case of CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd [(1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has summed up this principle by observing that “It is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. In our view, on the facts of this case, the Tribunal did not take into account all these ingredients which have to be satisfied by the as…

Sita Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 56/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…that the transaction was genuine as it was made through cheque. In this context, the AO relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts of Madras and Calcutta where in the case of Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 & CIT vs Precision Finance P Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, that when the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of credit, mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient. Addition u/s 68 was justified. Thus 15 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that…

Sarika Ashok Satav, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 12(4), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1952/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1952/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1952/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sarika Ashok Satav, Supreme Angan Society, 1 Building Flat No.301, 3rd Floor, RMC Colony, BAIF Road, Wagholi, Pune – 412 207 .......अपीलाथी / Appellant PAN : DOVPS1327N बनाम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ITO, 12 (4), Pune Assessee by : Shri Deepak Sasar Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2006/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…s investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee company claimed to be the shar…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2005/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…s investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee company claimed to be the shar…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…s investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee company claimed to be the shar…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2003/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…s investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee company claimed to be the shar…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2002/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…s investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee company claimed to be the shar…

Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S Qutone Ceramic P. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Sarvesh Gohil, AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

…rred in deleting the said addition of Rs.50,00,000/-made u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the ratios of the decisions in the cases of Umesh Krishnani vs. ITO (2013), 35 taxmann.com 598 (Gujarat High Court), CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd, 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta High Court) and ACIT vs. Nakoda Fashion Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1716/Ahd/2012. Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 2 of 4 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of Rs.16,25,998/- u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D without appreciating the facts of the case.…

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mum, Bai, Mumbai vs. M/S. Nishrin Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6125/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…cer has further cast onus upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of receipt to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Precision Finance Pvt Ltd 208 ITR 465 (Cal) and also in the case of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (sc). 10. The Ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, has deleted the addition pertaining to M/s Rowland Trexim P Ltd, M/s Bhawna Computers P Ltd and M/s Blue Jay Airlines Pvt Ltd totalling Rs.12 crores and has confirmed the addition pertaining to the remaining 4 partie…

Proma Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 is dismissed

ITA 1788/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the said transaction. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the said decision alongwith other judicial precedents such as the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Kol) and the Apex Court judgement in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT 3 and Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 4. 8. From the above observation, we are of the considered opinion that ground 1 raised by the assessee deserves to fail as we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this ground. In the result, ground 1 is dismissed.…

Smt. Rashmi Sanjeev Bangad, Gamdhidham vs. The ITO-Ward-1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 62/RJT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 68o

…he transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. These liabilities on the assessee were imposed to justify the cash credit entries under Section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 465 wherein it was held as under: “It was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case, the Tribunal did not take into account all these ingredients which had to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars was not enough. “ A.Y.…

The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S Vikas Sanitarywares, Morbi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 396/RJT/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 396/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…the transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. These liabilities on the assessee were imposed to justify the cash credit entries under section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision finance (p) Ltd reported in 208 ITR 465 wherein it was held as under: “It was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case, the Tribunal did not take into account all these ingredients which had to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars was not enough. The enq…

DCIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Alpeshkumar C.Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 41(1)Section 54F

…the transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. These liabilities on the assessee were imposed to justify the cash credit entries under section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision finance (p) Ltd reported in 208 ITR 465 wherein it was held as under: “It was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case, the Tribunal did not take into ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 32 account all these ingredients which had to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere f…