Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.). Further, in Bharati Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

117 ITR 690High Court1979#15116 most cited
6

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 131Section 133(6)Section 68

Judgments citing Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.). Further, in Bharati Pvt. Ltd. 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

…AL), 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 Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in view of section 68, where any sum is found to be credited in t…

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

…ries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) I.T.A No.1605/Del/2018 7 131 ITR 688 (Cal.), CIT vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.). Further, in Bharati Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal.), CIT vs. WJ Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal.) CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.) it was held that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough. Mere payment by a/c payee cheques is not sacrosanct nor can it make a non-genuine transaction…

THE ITO, WARD -2(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SMT. HANSABEN BIPIINKUMAR KOTHARI,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 613/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)

…credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Further, the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction lies upon the assessee which has upheld in the following cases also :- • CIT Vs.W.J. Walker and Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal.) • Sajan Dasand Sons V. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 435 (Delhi) • Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and • Jaspal Singh V CIT [2006] 290 ITR 306 (P&H) • Dhanlaxmi Steel RE-rolling Mills 57 ITD 3612 (Hyd.) In view of the above facts, it is evident that the assessee could not discharge the onus of burden of the two persons from whom loan…

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

…& 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 statement of Sh. Mahesh Garg was general and now Sh. Mahesh Garg had given a 9 Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. specific statement wherein he had confirmed that he had given an accommod…

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)

…e. Thus the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the depositors.” 6. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Bharti (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) " CIT Vs W.J. Klarler & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial and Ind. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " Precision Finance Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) " Nizam Wood Agency Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT…

ACIT 9(3), MUMBAI vs. STATIONERY POINT INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8054/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8054/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit-9(3), Stationery Point India Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 229, A-7/60, Saraf Choudhary Nagar, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs 3137 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Haresh P. Shah

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed RizwanFor Respondent: Shri Haresh P. Shah
Section 143(3)Section 68

…Prop Mrs Sharmila Kashid. viii Confirmation letters, copies of share applications of others including employees.’ Confirmations, by themselves do not prove the credit (refer: Bharati P. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal); CIT v. W. J. Walker & Co., (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal); CIT v. United commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal). The assessee is an unlisted company, whose shares are, therefore, illiquid. There is nothing on record to show that the share subscription had been sought in the course of raising share capital from the public, or by way of private placement, filing th…