What is Mills v. CIT authority for?

An assessee fails to discharge the primary onus of proving the capacity of creditors to advance money and the genuineness of the transaction when relying on documentation that amounts to make-believe entries, as held in relation to Section 68.

How many judgments cite Mills v. CIT?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Mills v. CIT (228 ITR 780), spanning 2015 to 2025.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 131, Section 133A, Section 142(1).

Mills v. CIT (228 ITR 780)

Kemox Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 221/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 142Section 250Section 68

…ollowing decisions: Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta). Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC). CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC). CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta). Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP). Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Тахтап 481 (Kerela). 12.1 The appellant is heavily relying on the documents such as copy of ITR, financial statement, bank statement, etc. filed by him during the assessment proceedings. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the issue of make-believe documentation in the case of accommodation entries has bee…

Mohan Dagadu Chougale, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1312/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ng decisions: * Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta) * Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC) * CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) * CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) * Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) * Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Taxman 481 (Kerela) 32. The facts of the present case clearly suggest that the appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus of proving the capacity of creditors to advance money and genuineness of transaction. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down by various case laws as mentioned above it is held that…

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ncome. 8.21 In the cases of Shankar Industries Vs CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Hari Chand Virender Paul Vs CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148, CIT Vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 CIT Vs Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465 Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780 and in the case of Sanil K.M.P. Vs CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of credit-mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient - Addition under Section 68 upheld. 8.22 There is nothing in law which prevents Assessing Officer in taxing both unexplained cash credit and bus…

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr vs. M/S Goldstone Cements Ltd

ITA/8/2022HC Gauhati16 Dec 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For Respondent: Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate

Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

…(2020) 17 SCC 311. (Apex Court) (8) Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., reported in (1986) (Supp) SCC 110. (Apex Court) (9) Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1997) 228 ITR 780. (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) (10) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Baishnab Charan Mohanty, reported in (1995) 215 ITR 827. (High Court of Orissa) 6. We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties and have perused the materials available on record and have also…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…tta) 44-47 10. Hari Chand Virendra Pal Vs. CIT (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) [1982]11 48-50 Taxman 134 /140 ITR 148 11. CIT vs. Biju Patnaik[1986]26 Taxman 324 (SC)/[1986] 160 ITR 674(SC) 51-59 12. Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs.CIT, 93 Taxman 561/ 228 ITR 780(High 60-63 Court of Andhra Pradesh) 13. Sanil K.M.P vs. CIT [2009] 177 Taxman 481(Kerala)[04.06.2008] 64-65 22 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Paradise Properties In view of the above submissions, it is requested that appeal may kindly be decided in favour of the revenue. ” 23 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT v…

Lokenath Investment Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…ral Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, 14 Lokenath Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re- rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481.” 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the judgments in the case of CIT Vs. M/s N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. dated 21.12.2012 (Del. HC), Onassis Axles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA 31/2013 (Del. HC), C…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa vs. M.Bhagya Lakshmi, Kadapa

ITA 96/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…f the IT.Act as the appellant had not discharged his onus of establishing the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction as required. Reliance is placed on the decision of the jurisdictional AP HC in the case of Dhanalakshmi Steel Retroling vs CIT AP 228 ITR 780 7. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 11. The assessee has raised the following ground in the Cross Objection. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in adopting the consideration at the rate of Rs.1,370 per sft. Without adopting the rate as per SRO. 12. The grounds of No.1 and 7 by…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa vs. S.V.Satish Kumar Reddy, Kadapa

ITA 2236/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…f the IT.Act as the appellant had not discharged his onus of establishing the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction as required. Reliance is placed on the decision of the jurisdictional AP HC in the case of Dhanalakshmi Steel Retroling vs CIT AP 228 ITR 780 7. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 11. The assessee has raised the following ground in the Cross Objection. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in adopting the consideration at the rate of Rs.1,370 per sft. Without adopting the rate as per SRO. 12. The grounds of No.1 and 7 by…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa vs. Pritham & Prathik Hospitals Private Limited, Kadapa

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

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…cation money. (v) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the company discharged the onus of proving the credits ignoring the jurisdictional HC decision iii the case of Dhanalakshmi Steel Rerolling Mills Vs.CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780 and the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of CIT Vs.BijuPatnaik 160 ITR 674. (vi) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the additions made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act, on the ground that the company was not carrying on any business activity daring the year under consideration and no sourc…