Dharmendra Kumar Bansal v. CIT

101 DTR 377High Court2014#8297 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 69A Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

source of source addition u/s 68 sundry creditors share application money genuineness of the transaction unexplained cash credit section 133(6)first appeal section 131 scrutiny assessment section 68 section 10

Judgments citing Dharmendra Kumar Bansal v. CIT

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 755/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…T V. Heera Lal Chagan Lal 257 ITR 281(Raj.) It has been held that where the identity of the creditor is established and the creditor has confirmed the loan, addition can’t be made. (vii) CIT vs. Chandra Prakash Rana 48 DTR 271 (VIII)CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 101 DTR 377 Once the amount was advanced by the creditors by account payee cheques from their respective bank accounts and the creditors were being assessed to income tax, the capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction stood proved. Addition u/s 68 was not sustainable. I.T.A. No.755/Jodh/2025 & SA No. 03/Jodh/2025 (In ITA No. 755/Jodh/2…

RITIKA GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4495/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

…lish the source of the source. No direct enquiry was made by the AO from these creditors. In these circumstances, genuineness of the transaction the need by the creditor Ld. CIT(A) deleted. doubted & the addition CIT Vs. Jal Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Ra) (RC) it held that; raised 68 prov iately before their credito tion through from unt elatives. Th of the credit advanced the groun of grant of loan by them, cash well AO made able deposited in admitted by the AO that all the income-tax and they have provided all the payments we oat of the cash creditors held that their PAN. Moreo payee cheque…

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…rned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) Aravali Trading Co Vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Rajasthan HC) (2) KanhaiyalalJangidVs. CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Rajasthan HC) (3) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 101 DTR 377 (Rajasthan HC) In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that where the transactions are through banking channels and identity of the creditors has been established and the creditor is assessed to tax, in such cases, the transactions stood explained and addition u/s 68 was not sustainable. Therefore, the additions made in the case of the assessee…

PRATAP SINGH RATHI,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…es to be quashed in view of the following judicial decisions: I) CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills, (2008) 296 ITR 0238, High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 2) Sh. Ajay Grover vs. ITO., ITA No. 532/2018 dated 23.11.2022 (Del) 3) Dharmendra Kumar Bansal vs. CIT, (2014) 101 DTR 377/(2015) 152 ITD 406. ITAT Jaipur Bench. 4) Shantai Exim Ltd. vs. CIT, (2016) 136 ITD 0313, ITAT Ahmadabad Bench. 6 5) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT, (2011) 131 ITD 0058, ITAT Jaipur Bench. 6) Paramjit Singh vs. PCIT, (2016) 48 CCH 0199, ITAT Chandigarh Bench. 7) M/s Refex Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 972/Mds/2014, date of order 09.09.2014, ΙΤΑT Chenna…

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…assessee's onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the source from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him either in terms of section 68 or on general principle. (3) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 101 DTR 377 (Raj) Once the amount was advanced by the creditors by account payee cheque from their respective bank accounts and the creditors were being assessed to income tax, the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction stood proved. Addition u/s 68 not sustainable. (4) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Heeralal Chaganlal Tak HIGH COURT O…

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 282/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

Section 68Section 69C

…und that the creditor could not satisfactorily explain the source of loan- Burden on the assessee in such cases does not extend to prove the source of the creditor from where he made the advance to the assessee. 4.4 Latest in CIT v/s Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) - held Income—Cash credit—Genuineness—While the assessee has to prove as special knowledge i.e. from where he has received the credit and once he disclosed the source from which he has received money, he must also establish that so far as his transaction with his creditor is concerned, the same is genuine and his creditor had the creditwor…

ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

ITA 332/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel, JCIT) a

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 68

…iew, we stand better advised to follow the view, which has been taken in Mangilal’s case (supra). 9. The net result is that all the three questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC) The jurisdictional HC while deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act held as follows:- “20.When we peruse the facts herein above, it is an admitted position that all the cash creditors have affirmed in their examination that they had advanced money to the assessee from their own respective bank accounts. Therefore, when there is catego…

AJAY GROVER,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- I(1), FARIDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 532/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Grover, Vs. Ito, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. Cit, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ajay Grover, Vs. ITO, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. CIT, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date of pr…

SH. AJAY GROVER,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4113/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

ITA 873/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54BSection 68

…ould have acquired the money deposited with him and, therefore the addition u/s 68 cannot be sustained in the absence of anything to establish that the sources of the creditors deposits flew from the appellant itself.” 2.2.3 CIT v/s Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 101 DTR 377(Raj.). The Hon’ble court held as under: “18. The logical interpretation will be that while the petitioner assessee has to prove as special knowledge i.e. from where he has received the credit and once he disclosed the source from which he has received money, he must also establish that so far as his transaction with his creditor is concerned, the…

SMT. NILAM JAIN,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, ALWAR

In the result, we set-aside the matter to the

ITA 903/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 145(3)Section 68

…ition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) 9 Smt. Nilam Jain vs. ITO is unjustified. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) • CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) • CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.)Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) • Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) • Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There are two tr…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI vs. SHRI SATISH KUMAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 637/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 637/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Income Tax Officer, Satish Kumar, Vs. Ward- Bhiwadi. J-501-502, Krish Vatika, Bhiwadi, Teh-Tijara, district- Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIEPK 2046 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k@C.O. No. 33/JP/2017 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 637/JP/2017) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessme…