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

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…essee firm could not produce these facts, can at best be made a ground for making addition however, the same cannot be made a ground for levy of penalty. He referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal Vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Madras) on Burden of proof be usefully referred to:- "After the lapse of a decade, 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. The difficulty on the part of any assessee to explain a transaction which st…

The Asst. CIT, Guntur vs. Sri Kavuri Srinivasa Rao, Guntur

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 163/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.331/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Sreepathi Agros & Land Guntur Developers Pvt. Ltd. Sunil Towers, Gujjanagundla Guntur [Pan : Aamcs8668M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.163/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. Sri Kavuri Srinivasa Rao Guntur Legally Represented By Gpa Holder Sri Kavuri Prasada Rao C/O M/S Sreepathi Agros & Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Sunil Towers, Gujjanagundla Guntur [Pan :Easpk8951G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri M Madhusudhan, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2018 28.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudhan, AR

Section 68

…ion and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shankar Industries Vs. CIT [114 ITR 689], Hon’be Madras High Court in the case of S.Hastimal Vs. CIT [49 ITR 273]. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is the case of revenue that the assessee had not explained the genuineness of transaction with matching dates for investment in share application money. According to the AO, the cash fl…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Sreepathi Agros & Land Developrs Pvt..Ltd, Guntur

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 331/VIZ/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudhan, AR

Section 68

Venu Myneni, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya, DR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…were deposited into the NRO Account. Another contention of assessee was that there were deposits of travel cheques into the bank account for which the source was income earned outside India and relied on the following decisions: a) S. Hastimal Vs CIT (1963) [49 ITR 273] (Mad); b) Tolaram Daga Vs CIT (1966) [59 ITR 632] (Assam.); c) CIT Vs Daulat Ram Ramatmull, (1973) [87 ITR 349] (SC); d) Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (1976) [103, ITR 344] (Pat); e) Rohini Builders (2002) [256 ITR 360] (Guj); f) Nemichand Kothari Vs CIT (2003) [264 ITR 254]; g) CIT Vs HS Builders Pvt Ltd (2012) [254 CTR (Raj) 542]; 3. Ld.CIT…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 178/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(1)Section 148

…ty 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. 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. (vi) Further, I find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 has held that the even if…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 177/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(1)Section 148

Durga Devi Gupta, Ranchi vs. ITO, Dhanbad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 156/RAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 156/Ran/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH (SMC), RANCHI [Before Hon’ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 156/Ran/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Durga Devi Gupta...............................................................................................Appellant C/o. Shri S.K. Poddar, Advocate, Upper Bazar, Behind Central Bank, Ranchi – 834 001. [PAN: ACSPG 5241 R] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Ward 1(3) Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad. Appearances by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri P.K. Monda…

Gemorioum, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 378/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, (DCIT)

Section 145(3)Section 68

…urce. In this context, he placed heavy reliance on the following decisions : (1) CIT v. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd.[2013] 32 taxmann.com 91 (All.) (2) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau.). (3) S. Hastimal v. CIT[1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) 6.1 Counsel further submitted that assessee had not only established the identity of the depositors, had received the amount through cheque. Genuineness of the transaction therefore, could not have been doubted. The creditworthiness of the depositors also was sufficiently established. Assessee thereafter, could not have been asked to estab…

Mrs. Usha Krishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2780/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2780/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mrs. Usha Krishnan, The Income Tax Officer, No.9/1, Eighth Street, V. Non Corporate Ward - 18(3), Nanganallur, Chennai - 600 061. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aahpu 1864 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S. Nataraja, JCIT

Section 131Section 68

…e 3 I.T.A. No.2780/Mds/16 has no other source. Merely because the Assessing Officer doubted the creditworthiness of donors, that cannot be a reason for making any addition. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in S. Hastimal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273, the Ld.counsel submitted that Assessing Officer cannot make any enquiry regarding source of sources. If at all there was any doubt regarding the source of the donors, according to the Ld. counsel, the addition can at the best be made in the hands of the donors and not in the hands of the assessee. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance…

Shri Krishna Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2878/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2878/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Krishna Charitable Trust, Vs Jcit, C/O-M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, Range-2, South Extension, Part-I, Ghaziabad New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagts8457F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 68

…ence was made to page nos. 43, 45, 51, 61 and 63 to 67 relating to the loan received from Sh. Anil Kumar Agarwal and page nos. 40 to 42, 48 and 51 relating to Smt. Kavita Agarwal. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " S. Hastimal Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) " CIT Vs Ram Narain Goel 244 ITR 180 (P&H) 6 Krishna Charitable Trust 8. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee had recei…

ITO 2(1)1, Mumbai vs. Aaram Real Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 68

…oment the assessee proves the identity of the creditor, his capacity to lend and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee cannot be further required to prove the source of the source of the money out of which loan was given [S. Hastimal vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad). Under the circumstances the impugned addition of Rs.26,76,997/- u/s 68 of The Act is not sustainable and hence reduced to Nil.” 5. It is noted by us that assessee has submitted requisite evidences in the form of capital account / balance-sheet, copy of return and bank statement as well as confirmation of the lender. The lender is duly asse…

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

…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: 2006-07 (Cal.)]. (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.); CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); Sarogi Credit Corpn. Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat); CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd.(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) & Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). In this regard, it is important to…

Parmanand K Hinduja, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1049/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1049/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Parmanand K. Hinduja, Asst. Comm. Of Income बनाम/ 402, Banswani Tower, Tax – Circle – 2, V. Near Corporation Bank, Mohan Plaza, Ist Floor, Municipal Road, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan (West). Dist. Thane – 401003. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacph9702N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…vii) ITO v. Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrigeration Company,19 TTJ 467 viii) ITO v. Sikkanthan Stores, 7 TTJ 294 (Mad.) ix) Champaklal Dhamanwala HUF v. ITO, 34 ITD 209 (Ahm.) x) Atmaram J. Manghirmalani HUF v. ITO, 67 ITD 289 (Mum) xi) J.S. Hastimal v. CIT, 49 ITR 273 (Madras) xii) Rohini Builders v. DCIT 256 ITR 360 xiii) Dimco Silk Mills v. ITO, ITAT Ahd. Bench xiv) Micro land v. ACIT 67 ITD 446 (Bangalore) xv) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) xvi) Kalwa Devadettam v. Union of India, 49 ITR 165 (SC) xvii) ACIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) xviii) CIT v. Bedi & Company Pvt. Ltd. 230 IT…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S D.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ty 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. 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. 4.3.7. Further, I find that the Apex Court in CIT v Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 held that the even if the share…

S. Aruna vs. ITO

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1857/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. R. E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. N. Prakash, JCIT

…constituted a good source for explaining the deposits in the bank account and purchase of the property. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble ITA.1857/Bang/2013 & ITA.39/Bang/2014 Page - 4 Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal v. CIT [(1963) 49 ITR 273] for its submission that an assessee was not required to prove the source of the source. 05. In so far as the unexplained deposit of Rs.15 lakhs in Karnataka Bank, submission of the assessee before the CIT (A) was that the deposit had come out of the sale of a property. As per the assessee, one property acquired by her in the year 2007 for a cost…

Commissioner Income Tax-V vs. Nipuan Auto Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-225/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Who Had Substantially Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. In So Far As 2013:Dhc:2197-Db

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 68

…that 2013:DHC:2197-DB ITA No.225/2013 Page 6 of 8 argument in the preceding paragraph we cannot also help observing that the basis of the argument is perhaps the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Hastimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1963) 49 ITR 273. That was a case of reassessment commenced in the year 1957 calling upon the assessee to explain a credit in his favour in the books of account of the firm, made in the year 1947. The assessee explained that he had borrowed the amount from one V in order to provide the monies to the firm. The explanation was not accepted right up to the Tribunal.…

Commissioner Income Tax-V vs. Nipuan Auto Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/225/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Who Had Substantially Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. In So Far As 2013:Dhc:2197-Db

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 68