CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd.

187 ITR 596High Court1991#756 most cited

What is CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee must prima facie prove the identity of creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions to explain any cash credit, including share application money.

135

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd · Section 68 · cash credit · onus of proof · identity of creditors · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · share application money · assessee's burden · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

56 Taxmann 304

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorpaper companysection 31share capital and share premiumsection 251(2)section 251(1)(a)live linkonus of proofshare application moneyaddition u/s 68entry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd.

Ruksana Suleman Chamadia, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 69A

…ever lumpsum has been withdrawn through the bank, has been forwarded to her sons by the assessee, leaving the availability of cash with her, negligible. 8. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (187 ITR 596), has held that the primary onus lies on the assessee to prove the nature and source of credits in its accounts. Since the returned income of the assessee is Rs.10,00,000/-, the onus was squarely on the assessee to bring cogent material evidence on record to show the source of huge cash deposit in her bank account. The two deposits of Rs.20,00,00…

Jade Granites Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 81/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…in the hands of firm even though firm has not started doing business. In the cases of CIT Vs Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465 (ii) K.C.N. Chandrasekhar Vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66 TTJ 355; and (1) CIT Vs United Commecial & Industrial Co. (P) Ld. (Cal) 187 ITR 596 it is held that Cash Credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. I.T.A No. 81/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 11 Jade Granites Industries v. ITO In the case of CIT Vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal) 232 ITR 820 it is held that Mere filing of income tax file number is not enough to prove genuineness of cash credit. In the cases…

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal); C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT, (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal); Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT, (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal); Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal); CIT Vs. United Commercial &. Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596 599 (Cal); M.A. Unneeri Kutti Vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker), Special Leave petit on dismissed by the Supreme Court (1993) 201 ITR (St.) 23 (SC); CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470 (Cal). The manner of payment by the account payee cheque is also not sacrosanct and this cannot make a bogus transaction as genuine o…

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 373/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Shobha Tomar DCIT, Vs. B-4, Govind Marg, Adarsh C.C.1, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALPT 4876 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G. M. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anoop Singh, Ad…

Munirabanu Mohammed Safi Shaikh, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee/appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…f three applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". 7.4 That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal)], Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that under the scheme of Section 68 " it was necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and lastly the genuineness of transactions". 7.5 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed…

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 38/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 cuke M/s Spectrum Foods Limited The Income Tax Officer, Vs. L-5, B-II, Surya House, Krishna Jaipur Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 3704 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh…

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2048/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member ITA No. 2048/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 21/18-19, Santosh Road, Holambi New Delhi-110002 Kalan, Delhi-110082 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCV0261F Assessee by : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. Manu Gawri, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 04.04.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the…

Creative Realmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

ITA 599/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…f three applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". 9.3 That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal)], Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that under the scheme of Section 68 "it was necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and lastly the genuineness of transactions". 8 ITA No. 599/JPR/2023 Creative Realmart Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 9.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Fi…

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kaka Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ear, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. 5.8 It has been held in the case of Bharati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal. And CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee. 5.9 In view of the above cited reasons and the judicial pronouncements, the assessee company has failed to discharge its onus, as explained/stated in detail supra, and it is established beyond doubt that the share application money received with…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…three applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". 7.3 That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal)], Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that under the scheme of Section 68" it was necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and lastly the genuineness of transactions". 7.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed…

Girdhari Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 118/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)

…of three applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". 6.6 That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal)], Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that under the scheme of Section 68" it was necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and lastly the genuineness of transactions" 6.7 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed t…

Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

…18ITJ 717 (Trib. - Indore) : (2012) 135 ITD 270: (2011)142 TTJ 409: (2012) 13ITR(T) 531 . 5. The facts of the case will hold more strength with the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) wherein it has been held that the mere circumstances that loans are taken through cheques does not establish neither genuineness of the loans nor the credit worthiness of the creditors. Following the decision of above Judicial Authorities, it is held that the lender company is a paper company without any means. The appellant company was obl…

Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

…18ITJ 717 (Trib. - Indore) : (2012) 135 ITD 270: (2011)142 TTJ 409: (2012) 13ITR(T) 531 . 5. The facts of the case will hold more strength with the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) wherein it has been held that the mere circumstances that loans are taken through cheques does not establish neither genuineness of the loans nor the credit worthiness of the creditors. Following the decision of above Judicial Authorities, it is held that the lender company is a paper company without any means. The appellant company was obl…

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

ITA 1605/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ant & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal.), Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal.) Oriental Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) I.T.A No.1605/Del/2018 7 131 ITR 688 (Cal.), CIT vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.). Further, in Bharati Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal.), CIT vs. WJ Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal.) CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.) it was held that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee. Mere furnishing of the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa vs. Pritham & Prathik Hospitals Private Limited, Kadapa

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Pritham and Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. PAN : AAHCP6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (in ITA 97/Hyd/2019) M/s. Pritham and Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. PAN : AAHCP6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue by:…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA 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 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assesse…

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)

…ial information. I find this contention of the Appellant to lack merit. The onus placed on the Appellant does not get discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters as has been held in the case of C!T vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Calcutta). In the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal), it has been held that, the fact that the amount is received by account payee cheque does not make it sacrosanct. It has also been held in CIT vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 300 (Cal), that if only list is given of creditors but identity and…

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

…n 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 share capital received from a foreign investor, the onus is on the assessee company to prove it that these credits are not unexplained credits. Since assessee company credits are required to be assessed under sec.68 of the Income tax Act. 7…

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

…n 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 share capital received from a foreign investor, the onus is on the assessee company to prove it that these credits are not unexplained credits. Since assessee company credits are required to be assessed under sec.68 of the Income tax Act. 7…

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

…n 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 share capital received from a foreign investor, the onus is on the assessee company to prove it that these credits are not unexplained credits. Since assessee company credits are required to be assessed under sec.68 of the Income tax Act. 7…