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.

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…[2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal); M. A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Ker); Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati); and Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 289 (Cal) support the view that Revenue authorities are entitled to consider genuineness of the transactions and to penetrate the veil in order to ascertain the truth. They a…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…[2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal); M. A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Ker); Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati); and Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 289 (Cal) support the view that Revenue authorities are entitled to consider genuineness of the transactions and to penetrate the veil in order to ascertain the truth. They a…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as succinctly held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as succinctly held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account…

A.J.M. and Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4567/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S A.J.M. & Co. 801, Dy. Cit-15(1)(1), Panchratna Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm0310R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…bove is well settled. We mention it here. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie his M/s AJM & Co. 8 case, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. We find that the AO incomplete disregard to the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings mentioned by him at para 4.3 of the assessment order and wi…

Nitin Rasiklal Sanghvi, Banaskantha vs. The ITO Ward-2, Palanpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2305/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2304 & 2305/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Nitin Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Ito, Ward-2 Prop. M/S.Bony Exports Palanpur. 1, Paras Society Neminath Nagar, At. Deesa Tal. Deesa, Dist. Banakantha. Pan : Amjps 3742 E

For Appellant: Shri Anil BrahmkshatriyaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 148

…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 Pvt 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 Pvt Ltd [(1994) 208 ITR 465 ITA No.2304 and 2305/Ahd/2017 11 (Cal)], it was observed th…

Nitin Rasiklal Sanghvi, Banaskantha vs. The ITO Ward-2, Palanpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2304/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2304 & 2305/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Nitin Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Ito, Ward-2 Prop. M/S.Bony Exports Palanpur. 1, Paras Society Neminath Nagar, At. Deesa Tal. Deesa, Dist. Banakantha. Pan : Amjps 3742 E

For Appellant: Shri Anil BrahmkshatriyaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 148

…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 Pvt 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 Pvt Ltd [(1994) 208 ITR 465 ITA No.2304 and 2305/Ahd/2017 11 (Cal)], it was observed th…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Infotech Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1371/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITA No. 1371/Ahd/2015 DCIT Vs. Gujarat Infotech Ltd Assessment Year : 2011-12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar VP and Mahavir Prasad JM] Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax .......…………...........Appellant Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Gujarat Infotech Limited ............................Respondent A-2, 2nd Floor, Jay Tower, Ankur Compex, Nr. Ankur Bus Stop, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN : AABCG 6123 E] Appearances by: Saurabh Singh, for the Appellant S N Divatia, for the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing :…

Abhinav Garg, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1615/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Ashvini KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…source of giving cash amount to the assessee. It is merely stated that the amounts have been given out of love and affection. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharati Pvt. Ltd., 111 ITR 951 and United Commercial and Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 596 held that “mere filing of confirmations is not sufficient to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.” Considering the totality of 7 ITA.No.1615/Del./2018 Shri Abhinav Garg, Noida. the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that it was unaccounted cash of the assessee which assessee tried to explain receiving through h…

M/S Sashi Cables Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 793/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(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. UnneeriKutti Vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker), Special Leave petition 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…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lotus Grih Nirman P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3998/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 8(2)(2), M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Room No. 212/216A, 2Nd Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 419, Laxmi Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate, Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400059. Pan No. Aabcl0864D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in the decision in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. However, we find that the AO has failed in the instant case to find fault with the submissions made by the assessee. The AO could have made investigations to find out the truth of the case. On the other hand, the AO has resorted…

Shri Nitinchandra Subhashchandra Shah, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…f Rs.10,00,000/-. It is well settled in law that the onus of proving identity and means of the lender, as also genuineness of the transaction, is on the assessee – as is held by Hon’ble High Courts in cases of CIT vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. Ltd (187 ITR 596) and CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt Ltd (208 ITR SSMC-ITA No. 654/Ahd/2017 Nitinchandra Subhashchandra Shah Vs. DCIT AY : 2012-13 Page 3 of 3 465). That onus is clearly not discharged on the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the assessee now submits that he has located the bank branch in which account of the lender exists and the matter…

K Vrushali, Thane vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. K. Vrushali, 4-D, Income Tax Officer- Regency Park, Eden Woods, Vs. 11(1)(2), Mumbai Pawar Nagar Thane- 400610. Pan No. Agypk5387J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

…dvance money and the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596, Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331. In view of the factual matrix and position of law mentioned above, we admit the additional evidence and remit the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. 8. I…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Symphony Comforts System Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Nol. 1817/Ahd/2014 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 1896/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat S. Shah, A.R
Section 10Section 143Section 14ASection 32Section 72

…were made through banking channel. And in support of its contention, assessee cited a judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Comm. and ITA No. 1817 & 1896/Ahd/2014 & Ors. 6 . A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) whereby the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the primary onus lies on the assessee to prove the nature and source of credits in its account. It is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of his creditors, the capacity of such creditors to advance the money and lastly the genuineness of the transactions. Only when…

M/S. Dalmia Consolidated Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…ch she has attached the copy of various following decisions wherein it has been held that merely establishing identity of creditors is not enough:- - CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) - CIT vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) - CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 350 ITR 407 (Delhi) - CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) - Mukesh Shaw vs. ITO 204 taxman 615 (Jharkhand). - NR Portfolio (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 29 Taxmann.com 291 (Delhi). - CIT vs. Empire Buildtech (P) Ltd. 366 ITR 110 (Delhi) - CIT vs. Focus Exports (P) Ltd. 229 Taxman…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…s CIT (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 & Industral Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " M.A. Unneeri Kutty Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker) " CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470 (Cal) " Bharati P. Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) " CIT Vs W. J. Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal) 9. The AO further observed that the addition of Rs.2,24,50,000/- earlier made in this case on the same ground…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Cal) vii. C. Kant & Co. vs. CIT 126 ITR 63 (Cal) viii. Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT 121 ITR 890 (SC) ix. Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. vs. CIT 131 ITR 688 (Cal) 9 M/s. Jasamrit Constructions P. Ltd. x. CIT vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal) xi. M.A. Unneeri Kutti vs. CIT 198 ITR 147 (Ker) xii. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal) xiii. CIT vs. Nova Promotors & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del) xiv. Independent Media (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 14 (Del) xv. CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 218/Del.2012 xvi. CIT vs. N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 263 CTR 456 (Del) xv…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ons made by Mukesh Chokshi duly corroborated by independent enquiries made from the main brokers M/s ISE and ISS. This view is supported by decisions in cases of P Mohankala 291 ITR 278(SC), Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573(ker), Precision finance 208 ITR 265(Cal) , 187 ITR 596(Cal) etc, wherein it has been held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channels is of no consequence by itself. 4.2.4 The decision of Mukesh R Marolia 6 SOT 247(Mum) relied by Ld ARis not applicable to the appellant because in that case the primary reason to disbelieve the appellant was earning of huge profit in a short span of t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elegant Security Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6173/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.6173/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2008-2009 M/s. Elegant Security Services The ACIT, Central Circle-13, vs. Pvt. Ltd., 315, 3rd Floor, E- Room No.332, ARA Centre, Block, International Trade Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN AABCE3756D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R. For Assessee : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Date of Hearing : 16.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAIN…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…s and creditworthiness of the depositors.” 6. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Bharti (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) " CIT Vs W.J. Klarler & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial and Ind. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " Precision Finance Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) " Nizam Wood Agency Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT (198)) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (C…