Mangilal Jain v. ITO (Mad)

315 ITR 105High Court2009#4341 most cited

What is Mangilal Jain v. ITO (Mad) authority for?

The assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, the creditor's capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transaction to rebut additions under Section 68. Mere proof of identity or payment by cheque is insufficient.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mangilal Jain v. ITO · 315 ITR 105 · Section 68 · cash credits · share application money · identity of creditor · capacity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · source of source · addition u/s 68 · preponderance of probability · creditworthiness of creditor

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

principal officersection 144acreditworthiness of the creditorpreponderance of probabilitybeneficial ownerborrowed satisfactionaddition under section 68addition u/s 68share application moneysource of sourceprincipal commissioner of income-taxgenuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Mangilal Jain v. ITO (Mad)

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS COMMUNIQUE MARKETING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan :Aaccc3432F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 PAN :AACCC3432F (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross-Objection No.27/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.4762/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms Commmunique Marketing Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Circle 4(2), Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. N…

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

…s and\ncircumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human\nprobabilities, transactions have to be held to be non-genuine. In this context\nHon'ble High Courts of Madras and Calcutta has observed in the cases of\nMangilal Jain Vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 & CIT Vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.\n(Cal) 208 ITR 465, that when the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness\n4\nITA NO.704/JPR/2024\nSHRI BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR\nof credit, mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is\nnot sufficient. Addition u/s 68 was justified. Similar views have bee…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…] 85 taxmann.com 104 (Delhi) held that mere establishing of their identity and fact that amounts had been transferred through cheque payments, did not by itself mean that transactions were genuine. 16.6 Hon'ble Madras High Court in Mangilal Jain v. ITO [2009] 315 ITR 105 (Mad.) has held that merely the fact that the transaction was by proper banking channel was not sufficient. 16.7 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 held that genuineness of the loans could not be accepted merely because cheques were exchanged between the parties. Deposits in lender…

DY. COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PRASAD SHETTY, SION, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

…and various judicial precedents such as Shankar Industries vs CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Hari Chand Virender Paul vs CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148 and CIT vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 have been ruled in favor of the revenue?. 4. In case of Mangilal Jain vs ITO (MAD) 315 ITR 105 and CIT us Precision Finance (P) Ltd. 208 ITR 465 the Hon'ble Courts have reiterated that "Assessee must prove identity of credits, capacity of creditor to advance money and genuineness of transaction." And as such the addition made by the AO was justified? 3 ITA No.6256/Mum/2024 & CO No.3/Mum/2025 Prasad Shetty 5. Whether in facts and circumsta…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 173/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d by Pravin Jain group including the assessee. 2. Further, the payment by cheque and through banking channels does not make transaction genuine. In this context Hon'ble High Courts of Madras and Calcutta has observed in the cases of Mangilal Jain Vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105&CIT Vs Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465 respectively, that when the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of credit, mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient. Payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. I…

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT GODHRA,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1567/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1567/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Dawoodi Bohra Masjid Ward Exemption V/S. Vohrawad, Godhra Vadodara Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatd 4476 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri b.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 68

…ess of the cash deposits. The AR emphasized that these details were made available to the AO vide letter dated 10/02/2022, and the AO had sufficient opportunity to verify the same. 7.1. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents, such as, Mangilal Jain v. ITO (315 ITR 105) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1) to justify the addition under Section 68 of the Act. These decisions held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of credits appearing in its books of accounts. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable. Unlike in the cited cases, the assessee here provided substan…

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

…han Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax 8 9 [1995] 82 TAXMAN 31 (CAL.) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1991] 56 TAXMAN 304 (CAL) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Commissioner of Income-tax v. United 10 ..,, 11 [2009] 315 ITR 105 (Madras) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Mangilal Jain v. Income-Tax Officer 12 [2012] 18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd. 13 [2003] 128 Taxman 621 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Sajan Dass& Sons v. Commissioner of Income- tax 14 [2011] 9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Comm…

M/S. QNS CASTINGS PVT. LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3554/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

…ma Jain [2018] 96 taxmann.com 307 (Del), iv. Bikram Singh 399 ITR 407 (Del), v. Sidharth Export [2019] 112 taxmann.com 193 (Del), vi. Krishna Kumar Sethi 92 taxmann.com 324 (Del), vii. Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel [2018] 95 taxmann.com 290 (Guj), viii. Mangi Lal 315 ITR 105 (Mad), 10 QNS Castings Pvt. Ltd. ix. Pavankumarm Sanghvi 90 taxmann.com 386 (Guj), x. Upendra Singh Raghav 88 taxmann.com 95 (Alld), xi. Toby Consultants (P.) Ltd. 324 ITR 338 (Del), xii. Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 79/2016) (Del), xiii. N.R.Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 134/2012 dated 21.12.2012 xiv. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. 208 ITR 4…

SHOBHA TOMAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

…nnathamban 10 [1995] 82 TAXMAN 31 (CAL.) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. 11 [1991] 56 TAXMAN 304 (CAL) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Commissioner of Income-tax v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. 12 [2009] 315 ITR 105 (Madras) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Mangilal Jain v. Income-Tax Officer 13 [2012] 18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd. 14 [2003] 128 Taxman 621 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Sajan Dass& Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax 22 Shobha Tomar vs DCIT 15 [2011] 9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi)…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARTEX KNITTING INDS. P.LTD, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 647/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 68

…n [2018] 96 taxmann.com 307 (Del), iv. Bikram Singh 399 ITR 407 (Del), v. Sidharth Export [2019] 112 taxmann.com 193 (Del), vi. Krishna Kumar Sethi 92 taxmann.com 324 (Del), vii.Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel Vs ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 290 (Guj), viii. Mangi Lal 315 ITR 105 (Mad), ix.Pavankumarm Sanghvi [2018] 90 taxmann.com 386 (Guj), x. Upendra Singh Raghav 88 taxmann.com 95 (Alld), xi.Toby Consultants (P.) Ltd. 324 ITR 338 (Del), xii. Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 79/2016) (Del), xiii. N.R.Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 134/2012 dated 21.12.2012 and xiv. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal). 8. Hear…

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…oner of Income-tax. 24. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v Union of India AIR 1979 SC 798. 25. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT(Addl) vs Jay Engineering Works Ltd (1978) 113 ITR 389 (Del). 26. Gadgil (SS) vs Lal & Co (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC). 27. Mangilal Jain Vs ITO 315 ITR 105 the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. 28. Precision Finance P Ltd 208 ITR 465 the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta. 29. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court. 30. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 147 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Securities & Exchange Board of India v. Rak…

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

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

ITA 56/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…pronouncement in his A/R’s reply to the show cause that the transaction was genuine as it was made through cheque. In this context, the AO relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts of Madras and Calcutta where in the case of Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 & CIT vs Precision Finance P Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, that when the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of credit, mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient. Addition u/s 68 was justified. Thus 15 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR taking into consideration the above facts and ci…

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2006/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…prove the creditworthiness of the person claimed as investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accou…

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2005/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…prove the creditworthiness of the person claimed as investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accou…

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2004/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…prove the creditworthiness of the person claimed as investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accou…

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2003/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…prove the creditworthiness of the person claimed as investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accou…

BAREFOOT RESORTS & LEISURES INDIA P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2002/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 68

…prove the creditworthiness of the person claimed as investor. The following case laws also support this point of view: • Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient Addition u/s 68 upheld Mangilal Jain vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 • Cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques. CIT vs Precision Finance P. Ltd.(Cal) 208 ITR 465 K.C.N.Chandrasekhar vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 66TTJ 355 CIT vs United Commercial & Industrial co.(P)Ltd.(Cal) 187 ITR 596 7.9. Since these are credits appearing in the books of accou…

PODDAR FININ COSULTANCY PVT.LTD,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1007/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1007/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143Section 68

…T Vs D.K. Garg ((2017) 84 laxmann.com 257 (Delhi)) - Where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not be entitled to benefit of peak credit. 11. Mangilal Jain Vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105, CIT Vs Precision Finance P Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR- Assessee failed to prove the genuineness of credit - Mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient - Addition u/s 68 upheld 12. Blowell Auto (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (P&H) 11 DTR 91 -Since creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction not established, addition u/…

D. J. STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1570/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 68

…y doubt regarding receipt of the funds and genuineness of the transactions, mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient as held by Hon'ble High Courts reported in the following cases: i) Mangilal Jain Vs. ITO (Mad.) 315 ITR 105 ii) CIT Vs. Preusion Finance P. Ltd. (Cal.) 208 ITR 465 iii) CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd., Cal. 187 ITR 596 and iv) KCN Chandrasekhar Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bang.) 66 TTJ 355. v) CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (Del.FB) 205 ITR 98 vi) CIT Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (Cal.) 263 ITR 623. vii) CIT Vs. Rathi Finlease Ltd. (MP) 215 CTR…

KOLLI SUBRAHMANYAM,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(2)Section 263

…the Act. We note from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee has been provided numerous opportunities but the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the cash credits to the satisfaction of the AO. In the case of Mangilal Jain Vs. ITO (315 ITR 105) the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under:- “16. In all, the result of inquiries carried out by the department should reveal and satisfy transparently all parameters of section 68, concurrently. In the present case, the finding of fact is to the effect that neither the creditworthiness nor genuineness of the parties has been established by th…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Mangilal Jain v. ITO (Mad) (315 ITR 105) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax