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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd.?

135 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd. (187 ITR 596), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 143(2), Section 115BBE, Section 142(1).

CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd. (187 ITR 596)

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

…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 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

…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…

Kankuben Udesingh Machi(Prop. Sunny Scrap Traders), Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2118/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…t discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters, or demonstrating that the transactions are done through the banking channels or even by filing the income tax assessment particulars. In the case of CIT Vs United Commercial and Industrial Co (P.) Ltd [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal), Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that "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". Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal), it was observed that "it is for the assessee to prove…

D. J. Stock Broking Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1570/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 14ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2011-12 D.J. Stock Broking Pvt. ITO, Ltd., A/2, Rameshwar Co- Ward-1(1)(4), op Housing Society Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad Shahibaugh, Ahmedabad (Respondent) PAN: AACCD7429B (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri P.D. Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 01-06-2022 Date of pronouncement : 24-06-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissi…

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…eque is not sufficient, thus holding that the assessee has to establish the Identity of his creditors, Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction.. It has been held by CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal), that the onus does not get discharged merely by such confirmatory letters. This view was further held in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) wherein it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. The Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (…

Sahebsingh Bindrasingh Sengar HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1026/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1026/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sahebsingh Bindrasingh The Ito बनाम/ Sengar Huf Ward-4(2)(4) Vs. 1361, Moti Vasan Sheri Ahmedabad Joshi No Khancho Saraspur Ahmedabad-380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakhs 0022 G .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…cash and thereby failed to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in capital account. 5.7. The Ld AO has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Comm. And Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 187 ITR 596 (Cal.), whereby, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that the primary onus lies on the assessee to prove the nature and source of credits in its account. 5.8. Hence, the ld AO has made an addition of Rs. 17.20 lakhs in respect of the first 2 grounds of this appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO, the assessee preferred an a…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3565/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…plicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. [1991] 56 Taxman 304/187 ITR 596, 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". Similarly, in the case of Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra), it was observed that "it is for the assessee to prov…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3564/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…plicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. [1991] 56 Taxman 304/187 ITR 596, 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". Similarly, in the case of Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra), it was observed that "it is for the assessee to prov…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3563/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…plicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. [1991] 56 Taxman 304/187 ITR 596, 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". Similarly, in the case of Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra), it was observed that "it is for the assessee to prov…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3562/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…plicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. [1991] 56 Taxman 304/187 ITR 596, 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". Similarly, in the case of Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra), it was observed that "it is for the assessee to prov…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3561/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…plicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. [1991] 56 Taxman 304/187 ITR 596, 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". Similarly, in the case of Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra), it was observed that "it is for the assessee to prov…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1313/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…f the share applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". 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". Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed that…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not sufficient to discharge onus. Korlay Trading o. Ud. (232 ITR 820)(Cal.) 13. Considering the facts of the case as well as the judicial…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 24/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not sufficient to discharge onus. Korlay Trading o. Ud. (232 ITR 820)(Cal.) 13. Considering the facts of the case as well as the judicial…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 23/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not sufficient to discharge onus. Korlay Trading o. Ud. (232 ITR 820)(Cal.) 13. Considering the facts of the case as well as the judicial…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not sufficient to discharge onus. Korlay Trading o. Ud. (232 ITR 820)(Cal.) 13. Considering the facts of the case as well as the judicial…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1511/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not sufficient to discharge onus. Korlay Trading o. Ud. (232 ITR 820)(Cal.) 13. Considering the facts of the case as well as the judicial…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not sufficient to discharge onus. Korlay Trading o. Ud. (232 ITR 820)(Cal.) 13. Considering the facts of the case as well as the judicial…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not sufficient to discharge onus. Korlay Trading o. Ud. (232 ITR 820)(Cal.) 13. Considering the facts of the case as well as the judicial…

Kasper Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-14(2), New Delhi

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IT V Lovely Exports Chandrashekhar V ACIT [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) 66 TTJ 355 (ITAT • ITO V Neelkanth Finbuild Bangalore) • Ltd. ITA No. 2821/ Del/ CIT V united 2009 Commercial and • ITO V NC Cables Ltd. ITA Industrial Company Pvt. No. 4122/Del/2009, ITAT Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) • Delhi CIT V Durga Prasad • CIT V Expo Globe India Ltd More (1971) 82 ITR 540 [2014] 51 taxmann.com (SC) • 208 (Delhi HC) ITO V K. Jayaraman (Mad.) (1987) 168 ITR Differentiated Roshan Di Hatti, 757 Mittal Belting and Machinery Stores, Sophia Finance Ltd, McDowell & Co Ltd.Nova Promoters, Azadi BachaoAndolan(SC), Vodafone iNternationa l H…

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

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

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

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

Kankuben Udesingh Machi(Prop. Sunny Scrap Traders), Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

D. J. Stock Broking Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Sahebsingh Bindrasingh Sengar HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Ahmedabad

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

Kasper Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-14(2), New Delhi