CIT v. Radhika Creation

47 DTR 60High Court2010#25079 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 69C
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Radhika Creation

Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Rohit, Mandi Gobindgarh

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 905/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.905/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito-Ward-1 Shri Rohit Mandi Gobindgarh Shop No.308, Sec-26A बनाम/ At Sirhind, New Libra Kothi Amloh Road, Gobindgarh Vs. Railway Road, Sirhind Fatehgarh Sahib - 147301 Fatehgarh Sahib – 147301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Asopr-3001-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-06- 2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 24-12-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.1509.90 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases While Framing The Assessment. The Sole Ground Of Appeal Read As Under: - Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) / Nfac Was Right In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.15,09,90,967/- As Shown Purchases Expenses Claimed By The Assessee & Nefac Has Added To The Total Income & Taxed As Income From Other Sources U/S 69C Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. (422 ITR 520); the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018 ITL 4828); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Radhika Creation (47 DTR 60). The Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Prime Steel Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (174 taxmann.com 547), on similar facts, deleted the full disallowance as made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. The bench referred to various judicial decisions while arriving at its conclusion. This case law also supports the case of the assessee. T…

Falguni Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Falguni Samir Mehta, Acit-19(1), 303, Mansarovar, Mount Pleasant Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400006. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Abeps 6347 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Gosalia / Isha ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash D Choughule, Sr DR
Section 148Section 69C

…nts, it cannot be expenditure is accounted in regular books of accounts, it cannot be said that its source is not explained, relied on the decision in the s not explained, relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs Radhika creations Radhika creations (2010) 47 DTR 60 (Del) (2010) 47 DTR 60 (Del). 8.5 The learned counsel of the submitted The learned counsel of the submitted that there were that there were contradiction in the finding of the Assessing Officer, firstly that he contradiction in the finding of the Assessing Officer contradiction in the finding of the Assessing Officer has recorded as all concern of…

ITO 9(2)1, Mumbai vs. Jogindra Expaorts Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7005/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7005/Mum/13 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer 9(2)1 बनाम/ M/S. Jogindra Exports Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No.225, C-101, 1St Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Marathon Nextgen Innova, Mumbai - 400020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj2479D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohandas
Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 40

…under deeming A.Y.2010-11 provision. Under this Section source of expenditure is the decisive factor and not authenticity of the expenditure itself. Appellant gets support from the decision of:- (a) Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Radhika Creation (2010) 47 DTR 60 (b) ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Hamlet Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. (c) ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Glorious Hospitality (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT(ITA No. 2124/Del/2012 pronouncement:31.10.2012) Thus, in the light of the above discussion, I reached to the conclusion that Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly made the addition of Rs.1,28,24,714…

CIT v. Radhika Creation (47 DTR 60) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax