Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal); M.A. UnneeriKutti v. CIT

198 ITR 147High Court1992#5802 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 68 Section 131 Section 143(3)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

genuineness of the transaction unexplained cash credit section 133(6)section 68 previous year section 143(2)transfer person section 143 company document nfac

Judgments citing Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal); M.A. UnneeriKutti v. CIT

PRODIGY INFOMATICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(2)(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed

ITA 2124/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishprodigy Infomatics Private Vs. Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Limited Director Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Plot No. D- 388, Midc, Ttc Aayakar Bhavan Industrial Area, Kukshet Mumbai- 400020 Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan/Gir No. Aadcp3211A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 18.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal.

Section 250Section 68

…126 ITR 63(Cal), Prakash Textile Agency v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (CAL) Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd., vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 (CAL), CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal), M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker.). 5.6 It has also been held in Bharati P.Ltd. vs. CIT. (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal.), CIT vs WJ Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal), CIT vs. United Commercial Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.) that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assesse. 5.7 In the case of Sum…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…mann.com 48 (SC) held that merely providing the identity of investors is not enough to discharge the onus on assessee u/s 68 to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors. 13.2 Hon'ble Kerala High Court has in M.A. Unnceri Kutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Kerala) has held that where the assessee had established only the identity of the creditor but the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions have not been proved, no interference was required in Tribunal's order sustaining the addition. 13.3 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Siddharth Export v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 193 (Del…

DCIT-27(2), MUMBAI, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PYRAMID INFRATECH CO., GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 1426/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT-27(2), Mumbai Vs. Pyramid Infratech Room No.419, 4th Floor, Co. Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Plot No.19, Sector-8, Station Complex, Vashi, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400703 Navi Mumbai-400701 PAN: AAMFP8951D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent by Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The pres…

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

…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 one (CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., (208 ITR 465, 470…

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…creditors placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer that the sundry creditors were bogus, accordingly, confirmed the addition. While doing so, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not filed 15 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 9…

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

…of such credit. In the same judgement, the Hon’ble court has held that, the very words “an undisclosed source” show that the disclosure must come from the assessee and not from the department. Hon’ble Kerala HC in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147,150 (Kerala) examining ingredients of assessee's onus has held that, it is necessary for the assessee to proof prima facie the transaction which results in a credit in his books of account. Such proof includes, proof of the identity of creditors, capacity of such creditors to advance the money and lastly, the genuineness of the transaction. These…

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

…(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 &Industires 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 no sacrosanct and this cannot make a bogus transaction as genuine one: • CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd 208 ITR 465, 470, 471(Cal…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY SHIVA EARTHMOVERS & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

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

…transaction. If all the aforesaid three conditions are proved the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove that the amount belonged to the assessee. [CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT (1992)198 ITR 147 (Ker.); CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 495(Cal.). 5.8 Section 68 of the Act was also considered by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). The Apex Court held as follows:- "The question is what is the true nature and scope of section 68 of the Act? When and in what circumstances would se…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “"व” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 ACIT, Circle-1 M/s Bardhman Dharmaraj Burdwan, Court Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Compound, Kanchari V/s. Village-Konerpara, Road, P.OI.& Dist. Purba P.O.Kalanabagram, Dist. Burdwan-713101 Purba Burdwan-713124 [PAN No.AAECB 0141 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bardhaman Dharmaraj ACIT, Circle-2, Paper Mills (P) Ltd., C/o Aayakar Bhawan, Subash Agarwal & V/s. Annexe, Court As…

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

SHEETAL INFOSERVICES PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…ITR 169 Delhi " CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 206(2014) DLT 97 (DB)(DEL) " CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 " Seth Kalekhan Md. Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 " M.A. Unneerikutty Vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 " CIT vs. P. Mohankaia (2007) 291 ITR 278 " Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 " Shri Hersh W. Chadha, (Legal heir of Late Sh. W.N. Chadha) Vs. DDIT, Circle-1(1), ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Dei/2005 " CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 2 ITR-OL 68 (Delhi); (2014 206 DLT 9…

TITAN ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…nce 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. UnneeriKutty 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 are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstance…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, 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

…ce 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 are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstance…

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, 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

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

…6 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 one [(CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., ($) 208 ITR 465,…

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

…(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 had been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) because the state…

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

…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) xvii. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375…

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)

…R 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT (198)) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Ind. (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercials & Ind. Co. (1991) 187 ITR 597 (Cal) " M. A. Uneer Kutly Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) " CIT Vs Jalan Timbers 223 ITR 11 (Gau) " CIT Vs Sreelekha Bannerjee 491 ITR 112 (SC) " Sanker Industries Vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the additional evidence and stated as under: “Assessee hereby prays for admi…

SANJAY SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 6097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 68

…hnab Charan Mohanty (1995) 212 ITR 199 (Ori) " United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1994) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) " Oriental Wire Ind. Pvt. Ltd. (1981) 134 ITR 688 (Cal.) " C. Kant & Co. (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal.) 7 Sanjay Singh " M.A. Limiter Kutty (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " RBN Naidu Vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag.) " Chunnilal Tikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1955) 30 ITR 181 (SC) " Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) " Sri Ram Tandon Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All.) " Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.) " Ali Huesin Vs STO (1988) 68 STC 319 (Ori) " Ashok Electro Diamond…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LIFESTYLE TEXWORKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…) 232 ITR 820 If all the aforesaid three conditions are proved the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove that the amount belonged to the assessee. [CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT (1992)198 ITR 147 (Ker.); CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 495(Cal.). It has also been held by the various High Courts that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source or the origin of origin. Reference may be made to the decisions in S. Hastimal vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273(Mad); Tola Ram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4 AY: 200…