How many judgments cite Jalan Timbers v. CIT?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite Jalan Timbers v. CIT (223 ITR 11), spanning 2010 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 147, Section 250, Section 115BBE.

Jalan Timbers v. CIT

223 ITR 11High Court1997#3216 most cited

What is Jalan Timbers v. CIT authority for?

Addition as cash credits is not justified if the assessee discloses cash credits, produces confirmatory letters from creditors, and the creditors have declared these amounts in their accepted income-tax returns.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jalan Timbers v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credits · confirmatory letters · creditors' income tax returns · addition not justified · unexplained cash credit · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of the creditor

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 147 Section 250 Section 115BBE Section 133A Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 115be proximate nexus section 91 preponderance of probability creditworthiness of the creditor violation of natural justice addition under section 68 source of source genuineness of the transaction section 148a(d)addition u/s 68 unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing Jalan Timbers 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

…by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is also placed 6 on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganapati Mudiliar 53 ITR 623. 5.8 In view of the above and also in light of various judicial pronouncements viz., Jalan Timbers vs. CIT, 223 ITR 11, CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt.Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (CaL), Nizam Wool Agency vs. CIT, 193 ITR 318 (AIL), CIT vs. Korley Trading Co. Ltd., 23 ITR 820, M.S.Unneri Kutty vs. CIT 198 ITR 147 and R.B. Mittal vs. CIT 246 ITR 283, it is clear that the assesse has not been able to prove that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from…

Ritika Gems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-5(3)(1), 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

…inance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Ca 1) where in it was laid down that the assessee is expected to establish:- Identity of his creditors; Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction. xi. In the case of Jalan Timbers v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati), it was held that where, in respect of certain cash credits, the assessee but also had not only disclosed them in his return of income produced confirmatory letters from the creditors, and the creditors had also declared the amounts in their income-tax returns which were accepted by the ITO, addition made as cash credits by ignoring the…

The ACIT Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham vs. Softel Machines Limited, Gandhidham ( Kutch)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 175/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 175/RJT/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner of Softel Machines Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, Plot-15/16, Survey No.320, Gandhidham Circle, Village: Nani Chirai, Tal: Bhachau, Gandhidham-Kutch-370201 Gandhidham-Kutch-370140 PAN No. AAECS2783F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was based on some evidence on which the conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case." 2. Jalan Timbers V/s. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau.) "Held, that the Tribunal did not make any endeavor to give any cogent reason why the income-tax returns filed by the creditors and accepted by the Income-tax Officer should be ignored. The credits were prima facie genuine. The Tribunal was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.2,15,000 in the income of the assessee and disallowing t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

Ashwini Kumar Taneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(3), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…• CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Ashwini Kumar Taneja 6 • GG Films vs. ITO 45 TTJ 644 (Cochin) and Anil Kumar Midha (HUF) vs. ITO 100 TTJ 644 (jodhpur) • Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, Biahr 103 ITR 344 (Pat) • Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati) • Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) • S. Hastimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 49 ITR 0273. Ld. DR however supported the findings of Ld. ΑΟ. 5. 6. On appreciating the material on record and the submissions, and the grounds raised, primarily it comes forth that the assessee was given part relief by the Id. CIT(A) . On apprec…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…is in its command (which can be made available by him by exercising his authority) and then record its findings on all contentions. The enquiry too must be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. (5) As held in Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati)- cogent reasons are necessary for rejection of evidence. Page No. 12 Udayan Grover (6) Even if assessee requests for confrontation of back material and AO do not provide so, said back material will become unreliable and consequential addition will be not tenable at law. Submission on the addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000 under section 68 and…

Divyamala Prakash, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tezpur

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

ITA 70/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Divyamala Prakash Ito, Ward-1, Tezpur Flat No. 6A, Syndicate Marble, Six Vs. Mile Radhanagar, Guwahati-784036. Pan: Bpmpp 6934 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -1, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…y of PAN card of the Loan Giver has been enclosed herewith for your kind perusal as the same was found only after the assessment was over, the same could not be submitted course of assessment proceedings. List of cases relied upon Jalan Timbers vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Guwahati) In the instant case, the amounts were shown in the income tax returns of the assessee. Besides, the creditors had also shown in the returns about giving of the loan to the assessee. Strangely, the income tax officer while making the assessment in respect of the three creditors above named accepted the returns. This itself will go to sho…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir - 1(3), Surat vs. Rajgreen Infralink LLP, Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 375/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…n Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC). The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC), in Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC), Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pragati Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj). The assessee also submitted that it is settled law that addition made under section 68 cannot be made if source-of-source is not explained. To support such view, the assessee relied upon various decisions including Hon’ble Guwahati…

Rajgreen Infralink LLP, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(3), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 257/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4595/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh K. Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

…s books or that the explanation offered by it was not satisfactory. No other point was we are of the opinion that this appeal does not involve any question of law and therefore, is dismissed. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 5. In case of M/s Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau.), the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- "It is true that by proving the identity, the assessee cannot be said to have discharged its onus. In the instant case, the amounts were shown in the income-tax return of the assessee. Besides, the creditors had also shown in the returns about the giving of the loan to the assessee. Strangely, th…

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

…v. Orissa Credit Corp. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), Sarogi Credit Corp. v. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna),ACIT v. India Tyre House 72 TTJ 316 (Gau), CIT vs. Heerala Chaganlal 257 ITR 281 (Raj.), CIT vs Ajay Kumar Sharma 259 ITR 240 (Raj.) and Jhalani Timbers v/s CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau). Hence the ld CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,47,01,596/- u/s 68.’’ 11 DCIT-CIRCLE, BHILWARA VS SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA 2.6 We have carefully considered the rival contentions, the order of the authorities below, the material placed on the records in the light of the judicial precedents cited by the parties at bar. It…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

…tworthiness has been duly examined by the department under scrutiny. 111/SRT/2017/AY.2012-13 M/s. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Copies of relevant assessment orders have been filed before ld CIT(A). Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jalan Timber Vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 has held that if assessee and creditors both have shown amount in their income tax return, no addition u/s 68 can be made if the returns of creditors have been accepted by Income Tax Officer. As discussed above, the case of creditor has been accepted by the department. Therefore, we note that all three parameters as laid down u/s 68 of the Act, i.…

Mohkam Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panipat

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7919/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohkam Singh, Vs Ito, S/O-Shri Chota Ram, H.No.255, Ward-2, Sector-6, Huda, Panipat, Panipat. Haryana-132103. Pan-Awxps8147H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K.C.Aneja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 148Section 69A

…s prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz. the receipt of money and if, he fails to rebut the said evidence, it can be used against him by holding that it was the receipt of income nature. 7 | P a g e Again, support is drawn from CIT vs Jalan Timbers 223 ITR 11, 17 (Gauhati) wherein it is clearly held that in order to establish the fact of receipt of cash-credit, the assessee must prove three important conditions.” 1. Identity of the cash creditors. 2. Genuineness of the transaction. 3. Capability of the person giving the cash credit. During the proceedings assessee was not able to prove the identity of…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Structarch Developers P Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2408/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 68

…or to advance the money and the genuineness of the transaction. If the assessee establishes the above said three conditions, it would be for the Department to disprove the same {CIT v/s Baishnab Charan Mohanty (1995) 212 IFR 199} {Yalan Timbers v/s CAT (1997) 223 ITR 11 [Cal]}. In the present context the assessee has not discharge its onus u/s 68. In view of the same the loan entries from BMPL and SSL totaling to Rs.41,49,500/- are treated as unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 of the-Income Tax Act, 1961 and aggregated to the income of the assessee. No set off on account of brought forward loss is allowable.” 5. Bei…

A.C.I.T., Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Viswakarma Residency, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

…e finding of fact, and the appellant having not pointed A.Y 2016-17 ACIT, C-49(1), Kol Vs. M/s. Viswakarma Residency Page 17 out any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact, no interference is warranted. In the case of Jalan Timbers vs CIT[1997] 223 ITR 11(Gau) it has been held that where, in respect of certain cash credits, the asessee had not only disclosed them in his return of income but also produced confirmatory letters from the creditors, and the creditors had also declared the amounts in their income-tax returns which were accepted by the ITO, addition made a cash credit by ignoring the afor…

Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…sessee prima facie proves the following — (i) Proof of identity of the creditor (ii) Capacity of such creditor to advance the money (iii) Genuineness of the transaction Reliance is placed on the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Jalan Timbers —223 ITR 11 (Gau) 5.1.6 The appellant contends that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal ground of appeal raised by the appellant before him. The CIT(A) has at para 4 of his mentioned that "This is legal ground. The A/R of the appellant has not filed any submission about this ground. Therefore this ground is not allowed". In the written submissions file…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics & Packaging (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 737/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…t Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 0723 (Bom) x) CIT vs. Taj Borewell (2007) 291 ITR 0232 (Mad.) xi) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 0244 (Pat) xii) CIT vs. Hanuman Agarwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat) xiii) Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau) xiv) CIT vs. Dalmia Resorts International (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Del) xv) Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 399 ITR 0425 (Mad) xvi) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) xvii) CIT vs. Shri E.S. Jose (2014) 220 Taxman 0032 (Ker) xviii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del) xix) Mr. Gaura…