Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT

280 ITR 512High Court2006#1745 most cited

What is Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT authority for?

Where a loan is repaid and the repayment is accepted by the tax department, no addition for such loan can be made in the hands of the assessee as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Murlidhar Lahorimal · 280 ITR 512 · Section 68 Income-tax Act 1961 · cash credit addition · unexplained loan · loan repayment accepted · no addition for repaid loan · Gujarat High Court · assessee's hands · source of credit · repayment of loan

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 115BBESection 131
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

permanent account numbereligible assesseesummons under section 131statement under section 132(4)source of sourceaddition under section 68eligible businesssection 44asection 44adshare application moneysection 133disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…y was not having this information in possession on the basis of which additions were made by AO. 11. With regard to merit of the addition, reliance was also placed by ld. AR on the decision of Hon. Gujarat High court in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512, wherein it is held as under: As section 68 denotes, once there is a credit in the books maintained by the assessee, the primary onus is on the assessee, namely, to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit. An assessee can be asked to prove the source of credit in books, but cannot be asked to prove the source of the source.…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…y was not having this information in possession on the basis of which additions were made by AO. 11. With regard to merit of the addition, reliance was also placed by ld. AR on the decision of Hon. Gujarat High court in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512, wherein it is held as under: As section 68 denotes, once there is a credit in the books maintained by the assessee, the primary onus is on the assessee, namely, to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit. An assessee can be asked to prove the source of credit in books, but cannot be asked to prove the source of the source.…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…y was not having this information in possession on the basis of which additions were made by AO. 11. With regard to merit of the addition, reliance was also placed by ld. AR on the decision of Hon. Gujarat High court in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512, wherein it is held as under: As section 68 denotes, once there is a credit in the books maintained by the assessee, the primary onus is on the assessee, namely, to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit. An assessee can be asked to prove the source of credit in books, but cannot be asked to prove the source of the source.…

Parmanand K Hinduja, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1049/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1049/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Parmanand K. Hinduja, Asst. Comm. Of Income बनाम/ 402, Banswani Tower, Tax – Circle – 2, V. Near Corporation Bank, Mohan Plaza, Ist Floor, Municipal Road, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan (West). Dist. Thane – 401003. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacph9702N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…80 (SC) xix) Kirloskar Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, 67 ITD 504 xx) ACIT v. Govindram Agarwal, 76 ITD 120 (Calcutta) xxi) Mola Bux v. ITO, 51 TTJ 1 (JP) xxii) CIT v. Hiralal Chgagan Lal Tank, 257 ITR 281 (Rajasthan) xxiii) Murlidhar Lahornimal v. CIT, 280 ITR 512 (Gujarat) The assessee submitted that the identity , capacity and genuineness of the lender is proved beyond doubt who had given the funds out of their account and the assessee has discharged the onus, hence, no addition should be made of the said loan given by the said San Finance Corporation to the assessee. ITA 1049/Mum/2014 6 The A.O. aft…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/341/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 271(1)(c)

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 341 / 2005 Malpani House Of Stones, A Registered Partnership Firm, Pitaliyas Building, Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar Jaipur though its partner Shri Shyam Das Malpani s/o Shri Shrikrishan Malpani. ----Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi _____________________________________________________ HON'…