CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

301 ITR 384High Court2008#1158 most cited

What is CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. authority for?

An addition cannot be made under Section 68 for cash credits if it is established that the credits do not pertain to the impugned assessment year but relate to earlier assessment years.

98

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained loans · credits from earlier years · addition in assessment year · deletion of addition · proof of source · creditworthiness · Income Tax Act 1961

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 277183 Taxmann.com 277

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 1961Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(9)section 271aab(1a)section 158basection 158b(b)purposive interpretationsection 113section 158bb(1)addition under section 68project completion methodhouse property incomesection 158bdnon application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mahaluxmi Marketing Pvt Ltd

In the result, the substantial questions of law are

ITAT/51/2020HC Calcutta07 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. S. N. Dutta, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv
Section 260ASection 68Section 69

…t in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hukumchand Mohanlal reported in [1971] 82 ITR 624 (SC), more appropriately the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VI vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. reported in [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) can be referred to as the facts in the said case would match with that of the facts in the case on hand. As in the case of the assessee before us in Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. the CIT(A) had recorded a finding of fact that the credit balance appearing in the accounts of the assessee does not pertain to the year under consideratio…

ACIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. P.G.Holiday Inn Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6933/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. A. DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Vaidya
Section 144

…, it was submitted that the case is covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Shree Rajlakshmi Textile Park (P.) Ltd. 113 taxmann.com 2 (Bom), CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (301 ITR 384 (Del)) and CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (216 CTR 195 (SC)). On merit, it was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition as the share capital and share premium were not received by the assessee in the year immediately preceding the assessment year and, therefore, the same cannot be charged to the income of the assessee for…

Shri Mukesh Kumar, Jagadhari vs. ITO-Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 40/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.40/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, The Ito, बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, Ward-2, 179, Bank Road, Yamunanagar Ambala Cantt. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Agdpk9371P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69

…same can only be assessed in the year in which the amount has been ITA No.40-Chd-2020 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Jagadhari 5 credited. To substantiate his contention, the Ld. counsel relied on the the following cases. a. CIT versus Usha Stud agricultural Farm ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) b. CIT versus J. J. Development (P) Ltd. ITA519/2008 (Calcutta) c. CIT versus Parmeshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan) d. Nirmal Ronnie versus DCIT policy ID No. 1075/Chd. /2013 (Chandigarh tribunal) 6. In view of the submissions and the ratio laid down by the hon’ble High Courts and the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesai…

DCIT 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Blbir Metals and Power Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7870/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Co No. 59/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 7870/Mum/2019) A.Y 2010-11 Dcit – 6(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Balbir Metals & Room No. 506, 5Th Power Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 423, Nav Vyapar Mk Road, Mumbai. Bhavan, Pd Mello Road Carnac Bunder, Masjid East, Mumbai – 400009. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0452D Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Shri Chandra Vijay, Dr Appellant By : Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ca Ar Date Of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objections . First, We Shall Take Up The Revenue Appeal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ent or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount from the assessment for asst. yr. 1993-94." In the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd reported in 301 ITR 384, Hon ible High Court of Delhi had decided that :- The CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs mainly on the ground that this credit balance of Rs. 15 lakhs is being reflected in the accounts of the assessee over the past four to five years or so and hence this was not a fresh credit entry of the previous year under consideration and these…

Ravindra Arunachala Nadar, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3363/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita N.: 3363/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ravindra Arunachala The Acit, Nadar, V. Non-Corporate Circle 15(1), No.161A, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Chennai. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. Pan: Adfpr1113B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri N. Anush Shanker, Ca & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri V. Balaji, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.Cit

For Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…genuineness of transactions. Therefore, these credits cannot be brought to tax even under section 68 of the Act. This view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd., reported in [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Del), where it was held as under:- “When the credit balance in the accounts of the assessee did not pertain to the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under section 68 of the Act and no fault could be found with the order of the Tribunal endorsing the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).”…

D.Koti Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2029/BANG/2018[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, D.R
Section 133ASection 148

…the addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made only in the year in which cash credit was received. In this regard, a gainful reference may be made to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd (2008)(301 ITR 384)(Delhi). 14. In the instant case, we notice that the assessee has received the advances from his customers during the year relevant to AY 2008-09. We also notice that the assessing officer has assessed sundry creditors as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.4,00,47,170/-. The statement of sundry creditors furnished by the asse…

Sh. Rajneesh Thakur, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-VII, Ludhiana

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1565/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1565/Chd/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriSudhirSehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriAtulJayaswal, Sr. Dr
Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…hat under section 68of the Act addition can be made only in respect of advances received in the year itself and not that received in earlier years. •Dy. CIT v. Amod Petrochem (P.)Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 265 (Guj.) •CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384/[2009] 183 Taxman 277 (Delhi) •CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohra, 301 ITR 404, Rajasthan High Court •Mahabir Prasad Prem Chand Jain v. ITO [1988] 40 Taxman 35 (Mag.)(Delhi) •Nuchem Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 87 TTJ 166 (Delhi - Trib.) 1565-Chd/2018- Rajneesh Thakur, Ludhiana 11 •Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.'s case [2008] 24 SOT 393 (Delhi) •ACIT Vs. Smt. N.…

ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi vs. Shri Sumit Ramsisaria, Ranchi

ITA 222/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…that previous year; in other words, first of all, there have to be credits in a previous year and only in the assessment relatable to that previous year, namely, year of credit, the sum can be brought to tax. In CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del) : (2009) 183 Taxman 277 (Del), it was held that since it is a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the credit balance appearing in the accounts of assessee, did not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making the impugned addition u/s 68 and as…

Shri Mohamed Iyub, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 3 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 423/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.423/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 20104-2015. Shri. Mohamed Iyub, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Capital Investment & Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Holding Co., Chennai No.298, Yussof- Raja Tower, Peters Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Aafpi 0112G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

…opening balance and it is settled proposition of law that addition should be made u/s.68 of the Act in the year in which the credit is first introduced in the books as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farm Ltd, 301 ITR 384. As regards to the balance two credits made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that parties were not produced before him for cross examination. Assessee had made all possible efforts to produce the creditors before the Assessing Officer and also filed copies of FIR filed against them. These facts were brought to the notice of the Assessing…

Dharamtar Motors Services Petroleum Product, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1438/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nce of loans carried forward from the earlier years. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v/s Usha Stud ITA nos.1438 & 2534/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 14 Agricultural Farms Ltd reported in 301 ITR 384 where the head note reads as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1999-2000 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had shown certain amount as advance from one 'B' - As assessee failed to file confirmation from B, Assessing Officer made addition of that amount under secti…

Purna Chandra Biswal, Jajpur vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…that previous year; in other words, first of all, there have to be credits in a previous year and only in the assessment relatable to that previous year, namely, year of credit, the sum can be brought to tax. In CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del) : (2009) 183 Taxman 277 (Del), it was held that since it is a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the credit balance appearing in the accounts of assessee, did not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making the impugned addition u/s 68 and as…

Shri Navneet Modi, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…that previous year; in other words, first of all, there have to be credits in a previous year and only in the assessment relatable to that previous year, namely, year of credit, the sum can be brought to tax. In CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del) : (2009) 183 Taxman 277 (Del), it was held that since it is a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the credit balance appearing in the accounts of assessee, did not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making the impugned addition u/s 68 and as…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cairo International, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 556/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Cairo International, Central Circle-18, X-355, Lane No. 8 Room No. 102, Ara Centre, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Jhandewalan Extn. Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 031 Pan Aadfc3693A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…f unsecured loans was uncalled for. 4.0.4 It was further submitted that as far as the opening balances are concerned, the same cannot be added in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) and our reference was specifically drawn to Para 8 of the said judgment. 4.1.0 Replying to the arguments of the Ld. Sr. DR with respect to Ground no. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that out of the total outstanding sundry creditors of Rs. 3,54,63,946/-, an amount of Rs. 1,05,70,246/- was the opening balance and the assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 (…

SHI vs. U Canadian Clear Waters Ltd., Chennai

In the result the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 797/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…on cannot be sustained U/ s.68 with regard to opening balance as at beginning of the year i.e., 1.4.2013. This proposition is supported by the Rajasthan High Court decision in Cl'I' vs Parameshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404, CIT vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Limited 301 ITR 384 (Del) and jurisdictional ITAT in Nallam Maniam. Textiles P Ltd. vs Appellant on 30 April, 2012, (A Bench, Chennai- 776/Mds/2011) and in 305/Mds/2016 in Sooraj Leathers vs ITO, Lexpo International, Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 August, 2012 (B Bench, Chennai - 649/Mds/2012).The details of opening balance included in the disallowance is…

Shri Vijay Kumar Ahuja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1416/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

Section 68

…to transactions of some earlier years and they do not relate to the year under consideration and therefore no addition can be made basing on the opening balances. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Limited 2008 301 ITR 384 Delhi. 7. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 8. In view of the facts narrated above, it is clear that the only question thatfalls for our consideration in this matter is whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in sustaining the addition of the amount which represents the opening credit balances appear in the account of the asse…

Dct - CC- 5(2), Mumbai vs. Kaygee Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result,both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 3539/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. Srinivas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Hari S. Raheja/ Sh Mani Jain, ARs
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 68

…t, 1961 and said findings of the learned CIT(A) has not been challenged by the Revenue. We further noted the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) further supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT VS. Usha Stud Forms Limited (2008) 301 ITR 384, where it was categorically held that amount of credit received in earlier financial year and brought forward to subsequent year cannot be treated as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As regards remaining amount of share capital, the ld. CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding in his order at para 4.10 as per…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Akash Farms Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1482/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Shabana Parveen
Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1482/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 ITO, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/s. M/s. Akash Farms LLP, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent PAN : AADCA3303J Revenue by : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee by : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement :…

Royal Rubber Works, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7237/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…be made only of that sum which has been credited during the year in the books of account of the assessee. My above view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Usha Stud Agricultural Firms Ltd. reported in (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del.). Therefore, the addition of Rs.30,91,548/- made by invoking provisions of Section 68 of the Act is bad in law and unsustainable. I, therefore, delete the addition of Rs.30,91,548/- and confirm the addition of Rs.3,43,289/-. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 13. In view of our decision in the appeal of the ass…

Varinder Pal Singh, Rampur vs. ITO, W-4, Khanna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.481/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir Sehgal, advFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एकल सद"यीय”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.481/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Varinder Pal Singh, The I.T.O., बनाम House No.145, Ward-4, Purana Awas Colony, Khanna. Rampur (U.P.) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CSAPS9671P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : S/Shri Sudhir Sehgal, adv. & Ashok Goyal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12.03.2019 उदघ…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jaipur vs. M/S. Trugold Buildtech Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 736/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 148Section 2Section 56Section 56(1)Section 68

…that previous year; in other words, first of all, there have to be credits in a previous year and only in the assessment relatable to that previous year, namely, year of credit, the sum can be brought to tax. In CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384/[2009] 183 Taxman 277 (Delhi), it was held that since it is a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the credit balance appearing in the accounts of assessee, did not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making the impugned addition under section 68 and…