How many judgments cite Hastimal v. CIT?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite Hastimal v. CIT (49 ITR 273), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Hastimal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 11, Section 11A, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 143(1), Section 143(3).

Hastimal v. CIT

49 ITR 273High Court1963#2004 most cited

What is Hastimal v. CIT authority for?

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hastimal v. CIT · Section 68 · source of source · creditworthiness of the creditor · genuineness of the transaction · share application money · addition u/s 68 · unexplained cash credit · onus on assessee · 49 ITR 273

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 11 Section 11A Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 234D

Issues it is cited on

source of source bogus share capital section 131(1)preponderance of probability creditworthiness of the creditor addition u/s 68 section 2(14)share application money short term capital gains addition under section 68 rule 46a genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Hastimal v. CIT

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…f the assessee to show that it has come from accounted source of the lender, as long as the fact that the had made the advance and was capable of making the advance are established. c. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Hastimal (S) v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 that after a lapse of decade, the assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a capital contribution, but also the origin of origin and source of the source. d. Recently in a similar/ identical case that of the Assessee, The honorable ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO, Ward 15 (2) vs. M/s.…

M/S Rajdeep Marketing Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7969/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…8 (Del.) 23 M/s. Rajdeep Marketing P. Ltd. 11. With regard to lapse of time, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has verified the transaction only after lapse of eight years of the transaction and in that process he relied on S. Hastimal v/s CIT, [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.), H.R. Mehta v/s ACIT, [2016] 387 ITR 561 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the learned D.R. heavily relied on the order of learned CIT(A) and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has discussed the facts and conclusion in detail. He submitted that the parties were never presented before the Assessing Officer and they are not traceable, therefore,…

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1985/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1985/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 155/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.1985/Chny/2017) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT

Section 153CSection 68

…dation of the assessment order and renders it vulnerable. iii. V.Ramaiah vs. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Madras High Court); iv. Mat her and Platt (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 168 ITR 493 (Cal.); v. S.Hastimal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 49 ITR 273 (MAD.); vi. Addi. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bahri Brothers Pvt. Ltd. 154 ITR 244 (PAT.); vii. Nemi Chand Kothari vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati,); viii. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rohini Builders 256 1TR 360 (Gujarat,); ix. Kishinchand Chellaram vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 125 ITR 173 (SC); x. Co…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…s books of accounts. In other words, the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of sources, i.e. from where the creditor has brought the money is not required to be proved by the assessee. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hastimal Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad) herd that an assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a capital contribution but the origin of origin and source of source as well. That Hon'ble High Court of Assam in Tolaram Daga vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) in para 6 of the judgment observed, the mere fact that the cr…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…of the assessee to show that it has come from accounted source of the lender, as long as the fact that he had made the advance and was capable of making the advance are established. c. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Hastimal (S) v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 that after a lapse of decade, the assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a capital contribution, but also the origin of origin and source of the source. d. Recently in a similar/ identical case that of the Assessee, The honorable ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO, Ward 15 (2) vs. M/s.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Almega Paints Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-

ITA 6267/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Almega Paints Pvt. Ltd., Tax - 15(1)(1), B-24, Minerva Industrial Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Estate, Off P.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mulund (W), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca3698N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

Section 143Section 68

…judgments/ orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, various High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal: (i) Anand Prakash Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 6 DTR 191 (All.) (ii) CIT v. Jauharimal Goel [ 2005] 147 Taxman 448 (All.) (iii) S. Hastimal v. CIT [ 1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) (iv) Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1996] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) (v) CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [ 1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (vi) Sarogi Credit Corpn. V. CIT [ 1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (vii) CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. [ 1986] 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) (viii) Asstt. CIT (Investigation ) v. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries [ 2003] 1 MTC 780 (ix)…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ssue are allowed.” Similar, observations have been made in the following cases.  CIT v Creative World Telefilms Ltd (333 ITR 100) (Jurisdictional Bombay High Court)  CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. ITA No.911/2010 – Del HC  S. Hastimal v. CIT[1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga v. CIT[1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) 38 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2.37 We also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. K.Noorjahan (237 ITR 570) (SC) to bring home the p…

I.T.O. - 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Leena Haresh Harde, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6429/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(2)(5) V. Smt Leena Haresh Harde Room No. 506, C-10, 5Th Floor 502, 5Th Floor, Padmawati Palace Pratyakshakar Bhavan Nanda Patkar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaxph1737Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Michael Jerald

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 68

…application money but unsecured loans and therefore even the 2nd proviso to section 68 of the Act is not applicable to the present case to prove the source of source of funds obtained. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - (a) S. Hastimal v. CIT [49 ITR 273(Mad HC)] (b) Tolaram Daga v. CIT [59 ITR 632 (Gauhati HC)] (c) Nemichand Kothari v. CIT [264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC)] (d) Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT [280 ITR 512 (Guj HC)] 10 Smt Leena Haresh Harde 12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no cogent material or evidence has been brought on record to indicate that the assessee's own unacc…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…the assessee to show that it has come from accounted source of the lender, as long as the fact that he had made the advance and was capable of making the advance are established. vi. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Hastimal (S) v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 that after a lapse of decade, the assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a 17 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd capital contribution, but also the origin of origin and source of the source. vii. Recently in a similar case that of the Assessee, The honorable ITAT D…

Sh. Varinder Kumar Gupta, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 754/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Varinder Kumar Gupta, The Ito, Ward -5, बनाम # 278, Urban Estate, Phase-1 Patiala Patiala "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Anppg 8996Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 64(1)

…vant period. Having filed their confirmed copies of account, the learned PCIT could not expect the learned A.O. to go into the source of the source and origin of the origin. In this regard kindly refer to the decision of S. Hastimal v/s CIT reported in (1963) 49 ITR 273. 3. In respect of Sr. No. 3 the learned PCIT has objected that no interest has been charged by the assesse from Smt. Gulshan Gupta and Mr. Ranjan Gupta. As mentioned above the amount of capital of the assesse and the interest free loans taken is much more than the interest free loans advance no notional interest could be charged to tax. Reliance w…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…) 430 Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. ITO 22. Dy. CIT v. SmtArchana Devi (2004) 84 TTJ (Jod-Trib) 467 23. ITO v. Laxman Das Makhija (2009) 26 (II) ITCL 517 (Agra-Trib) : (2009) 313 ITR 123 (Agra-Trib): (2009) 116 ITD 47 (Agra-Trib) 24. S. Hastimal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad) 25. JaikishanDadlani v. ITO (2005) 4 SOT 138 (Mum-Trib) 26. Prop. Dhawala Service Station v. CIT (1993) 113 Taxation 11 (Jp- Trib). 27. ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 73 CTR (Trib) 80 (Pune- Trib)(TM) 28. Jagadish Oil Mills v. ITO (1995) 52 TTJ (Ind-Trib) 102 29. CIT v. Shri Ram NarainGoel (1997) 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 30. Asstt. CIT v. Mahavir Met…

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…olutions Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 1162 The Ld. A.R. also argued that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source of investment as has been held in the following cases: 1. PCIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.819 of 2015(Bom) 2. S. Hastimal Vs. CIT 49 ITR 273(Mad) 3. Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632(Assam) 49 ITA No.782/M/2019 & ITA No.1969/M/2019 M/s. Geetanjali Space Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R. further contended that proviso to section 68 as introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013 is not applicable retrospectively and thus does not apply to the year under consideration as has been held in the following decisions nam…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…Narain Goel iv. [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan) CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal v. [2013] 214 Taxman 440 (Allahabad) Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT vi. 103 ITR 344 at 349-350 ( Patna) Saraogi Credit Corporation v CIT vii. 59 ITR 632 at 636 (Assam) TolaRam Daga v cIT viii. 49 ITR 273 at 279 (Mad) S. Hastimal v CIT ix. 151 ITR 150 at 156-157 (Pat) Addl. CIT, Bihar v Hanuman Aggarwal x. 154 ITR 244 at 247 (Pat) Addl CIT v Bahri Bros. (P) Lt xi. 264 ITR 254 at 261-266 (Gau) Nemichand Kothari v. CIT xii. 280 ITR 512 at 518 (Guj) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT xiii. [2008] 219 CTR (Raj.) 571 at 577 Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO xiv. 256 IT…

ITO, WD-2(1), Siliguri, Darjeeling vs. M/S Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

ITA 1038/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1038/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…om share subscribers, by account payee cheques and have been confirmed by these share subscribers hence he proved the genuineness and identity of the transactions.Therefore, the ld counsel cited before us, the following judgementsViz: S Hastimal vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad), Northern Bengal Jute Trading Company vs. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 407 (Cal), CIT vs Stellar Investments Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 287 : (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC), CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR195 (SC), CIT vs Dataware Pvt Ltd, ITAT No 263 of 2011, GA No 2856 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011. The sum and substance of all these judgments are tha…

ACIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eastern Distributors, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1442/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-34, Kolkata……......……………...................Appellant Vs. M/S. Eastern Distributors Pvt. Ltd…..…….......................…..……………….…...……..................Respondent 3, Mangoe Lane Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadfe 5901 B]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

…an annual income of over Rs. 37 lakhs, there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the two payments of commission amounting only to about Rs. 37,000. 12. In support of his contentions, the learned advocate for the assessee cited S. Hastimal v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.). In this case, the assessee was called upon to explain the source of an amount credited in his books. The assessee contended that he had borrowed the amount from a party at Bikaner which had been paid by the agent of the creditor by a bank draft. The assessee supported his explanation by other documentary evidence. The explanation of the as…

Ritu Kamal Singhal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3017/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)

…ssessee to show that it has come from accounted source of the lender, as long as the fact that he had made the advance and was capable of making the advance are established. : 9 : vi. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Hastimal (S) v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 that after a lapse of decade, the assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a capital contribution, but also the origin of origin and source of the source. vii. Recently in a similar case that of the Assessee, The honorable ITAT Delhi in the case of ITG, Ward 15 (2) vs. M/s. Rakara M…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1179/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 144Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/s. M/s Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAECP 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…of the Act cannot be made if source of source is not explained. Law is very clear that assessee is not required to prove the 'source of source' of cash credits. This proposition is well supported by the following judicial pronouncements – • S. Hastimal V. CIT 49 ITR 273 (Mad) • Tolaram Daga Vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) • CIT Vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 • Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guj) • DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Nevertheless taking abundant precaution, during appellate proceedings, learned AR of the assessee was asked to submit…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I