How many judgments cite MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case?

154 judgments on BharatTax cite MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case (354 ITR 282), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132(4), Section 37(1), Section 68.

MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case

354 ITR 282High Court2013#640 most cited

What is MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case authority for?

Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the initial burden is on the assessee to establish the authenticity of transactions for unexplained credits. Once authenticity is proven, this burden shifts, and the assessee is not required to prove the genuineness or source of funds of the creditor beyond this.

154

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

MOD Creation Pvt Ltd v. Case · Section 68 Income Tax Act · unexplained cash credits · burden of proof · onus to prove creditworthiness · authenticity of transactions · rebuttable presumption · assessee's burden shifts · source of source · bogus share capital · share capital and share premium

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 68 Section 69A Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

gaar section 194q creditworthiness of the creditor source of source paper company bogus share capital share capital and share premium retraction of statement retracted statement section 31 section 251(2)section 158bb(1)

Judgments citing MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case

The ACIT, 3(1), Indore vs. Shri Pramod Kumar Sethi, Indore

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

ITA 383/IND/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 68

…nuine and the loan taken from these cash creditors are duly evidenced by necessary documents which proves the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. 11. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments; 1. Mod Creations (P) Ltd V/s ITO 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) 2. CIT v/s Peoples Gen. Hospital Ltd 356 ITR 65 (M.P) 3. CIT v/s Kinetic Cop Finance 354 ITR v/s 296 (Delhi) 4. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd Income-tax Act, 1961, 597/2012 order dated 21.01.2013 (High Court of Delhi) 8 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 12. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before…

The ACIT, 3(1), Indore vs. Shri Pramod Kumar Sethi, Indore

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

ITA 382/IND/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 68

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sutlej Agro Products Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(2)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…take any adverse view against the assessee. Share Valuation report is filed at page-201 of paper book which is not rebutted through any evidence by Ld. D.R. 9. The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of MOD Creations Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.) (HC) held as under : “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. The presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee,…

ITO 7(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Lisha Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5845/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13 Ito 7(1)(4), Lisha Trading P. Ltd., Mumbai Ground Floor, Rajguru Apartment, Vs. Baburao Parulekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028

For Appellant: Shri Anoop HiwaseFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya

Section 143(2)Section 68

…, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as the undisclosed income of the assessee." Mod Creations Pvt Ltd vs. /TO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del-High Court) "Held, allowing the appeal, (i) that the assessee had discharged the initial onus placed on it. In the event the Revenue still had a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transac tions in is sue or as r egards the creditworthiness of the creditors, it would have had to discharge the onus which had shifted on to it. A bald…

Priytam Plaschem P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, both these grounds of appeals of

ITA 2534/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Gautam JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…s. Earthmetal Electrical Pvt. Ltd., dated 30 July, 2010. The assessee also relied upon decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shiv DhootiPearls &Investment Ltd., 237 Taxman 104 (Del.), MOD Creation (P) Ltd., vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.), CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.71 of 2015 dated 12.08.2015 (Del.) (HC), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.) and CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 361 ITR 220 (Del.) (HC). It was submitted that assessee produced sufficient evidences 8 ITA.No.2534/Del./2018 M/s. Priyatam Plaschem Put. Ltd., N…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ons, which took between the creditor and sub-creditor and/or creditworthiness of the sub-creditors, for, these aspects may not be within the special knowledge of the Assessee." 3.9. In another decision in Mod. Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi), the Hon'ble High Court held/observed as under:- "It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68 of the I.T. Act only sets up a presumption against the Assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of accounts of the Assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raise…

Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sankalp Corporate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Cit-1(3)(1) M/S. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5Th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. CIT-1(3)(1) M/s. Sankalp Corporate Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 564, 5th Floor, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New Marine Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AANCS 3998 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by :…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elegant Security Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6173/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…Capital Pvt Ltd [ (2011) 330 ITR298 (Delhi) ]; > CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Delhi)]; > Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gangour Investment Ltd [(2011) 335 ITR 359 (Delhi)]; > MOD Creations Pvt Ltd vs. income Tax Officer [(2012) 354 ITR 282(Delhi)]. (21) It should be specifically noted in the instant case there was no denial at any stage of the investigation or the assessment proceedings by any of the 14 ITA.No.6173/Del./2013 M/s. Elegant Security Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. subscribers to the share capital of their having invested money by way of share application money in the…

M/S. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

ITA 2159/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashwanikumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt.Shafali Swaroop, CIT-DR &

Section 153CSection 234ASection 68

…, decision of Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nemi Chand Kothari (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd., 14 ITA.No.2159/Del./2014 M/s. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi. (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of assessee-company. His findings in paras 2 to 4 of the order are reproduced as under : “Ground No.2: 2.1. I have considered the grounds raised in appeal and the facts of the case. I have also considered the submission filed by the AR of the appellant. 2.2. The appellant has raised ground…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 663/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…(SC) ii) CIT vs. Sahibganaja Electric Cables (P) Ltd. reported in 115 ITR 408 (Cal) iii) CIT vs. Shree Gopal & Co. reported in 204 ITR 285 (Guj) iv) CIT vs. Tania Investments (P) Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 394 (Bom) v) MOD Creations (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 354 ITR 282 (Del) vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) vii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT reported in 264 ITR page 254 (Gauhati). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed earlier as well as the judicial pronouncements cited, I am of the view that addition should not sustain. Ground No.7 of the appeal is allowed.” The Re…

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Modern Laboratories, Indore

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 277/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

…deration i.e. A.Y. 2008-09 and that is why AO did not refer to any adverse material but made a bald remark without any evidence. In the circumstances the appellant has discharged the initial onus as held in the case of M/s. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 282(Del). 15.1 In the event the revenue still had a doubt with regard to genuineness of transaction or as regard to creditworthiness of creditors, it would have to discharge the onus which has shifted on it. If revenue has any doubts with regards to creditworthiness of depositors, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of creditors as…

M/S Vam-Hi-Fashion Garments Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 494/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…) - CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 0334 (Delhi) - Pr. CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters P Ltd. (Delhi HC) - CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms P Ltd. (Delhi HC) - ITO vs. Hare Krishna International ltd. (Delhi ITAT) - MOD Creations P Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.) - CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 5 (SC). 6. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He stated that the primary onus is on the assessee to prove that it did not take an accommodation 5 entry, which the assessee has not done. Therefore, he stated that the lower authorities were right in making the addition…

Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana vs. ITO, Fatehabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.1542/Del./2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Banwari Lal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2, S/O Shri Bishan Dass, Fatehabad. 31, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Distt. Fatehabad.

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Peeyush Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR

Section 68

…eived as loan by the appellant. The appellant supported his submission by relying upon the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj) (ii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del) (iii) Mod Creation (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 354 ITR 282 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs Mayawati 338 ITR 563 (Del) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (vii) CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) (viii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (x) Dwarikadhish Sugar Industries vs. ITO 149 TTJ…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Shiv Dooti Pearls of Inves

ITA/429/2003HC Delhi21 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 131Section 143Section 260A(1)Section 44ASection 68

…hin the special knowledge of the Assessee.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The above observations, far from supporting the case of the Revenue, does the opposite. In the subsequent decision of this Court in Mod. Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del), the position was clarified by the Court and it was held: “It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68 of the I.T. Act only sets up a presumption against the Assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of accounts of the Assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the pres…