Mangilal Jain v. ITO (Mad)

315 ITR 105High Court2009#4336 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 366,314 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)

Narangs International Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA no

ITA 1383/MUM/2013[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…of making disallowance of depreciation because these very parties as stated above have admitted existence of assets before the High Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 210 ITR 103 and Madras High Court reported in 315 ITR 105 wherein such witnesses who shift their stand have been held to be not reliable witnesses for making addition. j. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the assessee received anything more than lease rentals of Rs.5.33 cr from lessee's. Further the rate of 18% taken by CIT(A) is only a notional percentage. Thus, even if the transaction…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs. Nitin Mohan Wadikar Pvt.Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 471/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.471/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj GargFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak and Mayuresh Doshi
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…664/- 4 only and he observed that the advancement of such huge sum of money was thus questionable. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 121 CTR (Cal) 20: (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) ii) Mangilal Jain Vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 5. The Assessing Officer further on 15.03.2016 issued Summons under section 131 of the Act to Mr. Ramesh Havele and asked him to produce copy of return of income, computation of income, bank pass book, etc. and he was also asked to establish source from which he had paid the said amount. However, he neither attended the office nor furnished any…

Rajesh Bhatia, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1137/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 133Section 153ASection 68

…channel and filing of return by the said lenders do not prove the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. I find support from the following decisions : 1. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (Cal) 2. Mange Lai Jain vs. ITO, 315 ITR 105 (Mad) 7.8 In the above cases, the Courts have held that mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of section 68. 7.9 Similarly, in the following cases, the Apex Court has held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an Assessee…

Forjet Leasing Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3633/MUM/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 80I

…sessment proceedings that these parties do not have any record such as balance sheet, bank statement etc. to prove creditworthiness of these parties. Appellant only maintained that the amount was received by cheque. In the case of Mangilal Jain vs. ITO (Mad.) 315 ITR 105 it was held that 'Mere proof of identity of .creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient. In the case of CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (Cal) 263 ITR 623 it has been held that section 68 is applicable even to share application money - use of the words "any sum found to be credited in the books'" indicates that the section…

Kamlesh Parwani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1737/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1737/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Income-Tax Officer 19(3)(2) Kamlesh Parwani बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Flat No.4, Chinar Chs 21St Road, Bandra(W) Lalbaug, Parel Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepp-3727-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…upreme Court in the case of Mohan Kela 29 ITR 278, Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, Sajjandas & Sons vs. CIT 264 ITR 535 and Jaspal Goel v . CIT 310 ITR 715 (P&H) the gift received is not genuine and addition u/s.68 was confirmed. In case of Mangilal Jain v. ITO 315 ITR 105 the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that mere proving of identity of the creditor or that the payment was made by cheque are not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction. In view of these decisions and facts of the present case it is held that the assessee has failed to prove any relationship with the donor. There was no occasion…

Om Namah Shivay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3881/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3881/Mum/2013 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Om Namah Shivay बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 15(2) (4), Enterprises, Matrumandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Shop No.6, Raj Umang Ii, Patil Estate, Ashokvan, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400068 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aabfo0605 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 40

…ument namely : A) ACIT V/s Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC); B) CIT V/s Virendeer Kumar Agarwal in ITA No.2429 of 2009, order dated 7.1.2010, Bombay High Court; C) CIT V/s Ms. Mudra G. Nanawati* (2009) 227 CTR (Bom) 387; D) Mangilal Jain V/s ITO (2009) 315 ITR 105 (Mad); E) CIT V/s Cebon India Ltd (2009) 347 ITR 583 (P&H); F) DCIT V/s Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj) G) CIT V/s Parikalpana Estate Development P Ltd (2012) 79 DTR (all) 246 and H) CIT V/s Pawan Gupta (2008) 304 ITR 177 (Del). 4 I T A N o . 3 8 8 1 / Mu m/ 1 3 5. The ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of sec…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 68

…he ld. Senior Departmental Representative in support of contentions relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540, judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Mangilal Jain Vs. ITO reported in 315 ITR 105, judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Precision Finance Private Ltd reported in 208 ITR 465 and judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of NR portfolio private limited reported in (2013) 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi). 9 AY: 2011-12 8.7 In the rejoinder, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the assess…