CIT v. S.D. Investment & Trading Co.

306 ITR 31High Court2008#15590 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. S.D. Investment & Trading Co.

Lalitha Padmaja Thallapalli, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 1243/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…, including the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Montes Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 100 taxmann.com 99, and also the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. SB Investment and Trading Company (2008) 306 ITR 31. 7. The Ld. Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the so- called advances received from customers for sale of gold jewellery, and further, the assessee has also failed to substantiate the sales with relevant…

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…ibunal that there is no material to link the assessee with the amount deposited in cash in the bank account of FBSL and thus no case is made out for making addition” Here is the same facts and position. 5.3 In the case of CIT v/s S.D. Investment & Trading Co. 306 ITR 31(Bom) It has been held that “ the explanation of the assessee that cash deposit in bank account represented advance against sale of air-conditioner was satisfactory asthe parties confirmed ledger entries hence no addition is called for". Here is also same position, as the assessee received amount from the 3-4 persons, which were deposited in bank t…

Express Airtronics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1402/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बिाम/ Express Airotronics Pvt. Ito 2(1)(3), Mumbai Ltd., (Now Merged With Net Work Telelink Private Ltd.) V. B-14 Valmiki Apartments, Next To Bombay College Of Pharmacy, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai 400098 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace0826H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1402/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 02.12.2015 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-14/Ito-2(1)(3)/2014-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2016

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…n-commercial purposes and therefore, there is no question of disallowance of interest out of the interest paid by the assesses The Appellant further relies on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. S.D. investment & Trading Co. {2008] 306 ITR 31 wherein it was observed that a businessman cannot be expected to and does not make profit out of each and every transaction entered into by him. In light of the foregoing facts and legal position of the case, the Appellant prays that the said disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 25,39,726/- be deleted." 4.3 The learned CIT(A) after conside…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…ibunal that there is no material to link the assessee with the amount deposited in cash in the bank account of FBSL and thus no case is made out for making addition” Here is the same facts and position. 5.3 In the case of CIT v/s S.D. Investment & Trading Co. 306 ITR 31(Bom) It has been held that “ the explanation of the assessee that cash deposit in bank account represented advance against sale of air-conditioner was satisfactory as the parties confirmed ledger entries hence no addition is called for”. Here is also same position, as the assessee received amount from the 3-4 persons, which were deposited in bank…

ITO, Ward - 3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Chitravali Sales (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR

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

…Taxman 182 (Del) (d ) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Chemi Kleen India (P) Ltd reported in (1990) 181 ITR 198 (Del) (e ) Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs S.D. Investment & Trading Co. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 31 (Bom) Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the ld AO erred in treating the trade advances received from customers, which were adjusted against sale of sand, as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7.6. We also find that the issue is also squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in th…

Sri Kalyan Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-54(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 371/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the amount in question being in the nature of trade advance, the provisions of section 68 are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs- S.D.Investment and Trading Company 306 ITR 31. As rightly contended by the ld.DR, there Assessment Year: 2004-05 is nothing brought on record by the assessee to establish that the amount in question actually represented the trade advances. By assessee’s own submissions, the amounts in question represented loans and the primary onus, therefore was on the assessee to establish the identity and…