PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.

412 ITR 161Supreme Court of India2019#251 most cited

What is PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The assessee, receiving cash credits such as unsecured loans or share application money, bears the primary onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the immediate creditor.

300

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. · 412 ITR 161 · Section 68 Income Tax Act · cash credits onus of proof · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · unsecured loans addition · share application money · assessee's burden of proof · source of source

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 133(6)Section 148Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 66share capital and share premiumsection 153a proceedingscreditworthiness of the creditorshare application moneyshell companyaudi alteram partempermanent account numbermlisource of sourceretracted statementsection 56(2)(vii)

Judgments citing PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. NOP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7648/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Nop Properties Private Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Limited 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Office No. Ii-B, Mezzanine Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, 289 Emca House, Shahid Mumbai – 400 020, Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 001, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcn1799B Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…aw, the Ld. CIT(A) should have applied the ratio of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central) v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13 NOP Properties Private Limited, Mumbai [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48/262 Taxman 74/412 ITR 161 (SC) wherein it has been categorically held that if the investor companies have no real financial capacity, negligible income and no genuine business activities, the assessee cannot be said to have discharged its burden under section 68 and additions are justified. The ratio of this judgement of Apex Court squarely applies to the present case.”…

RACHNA DIPESH LADDHA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(2) VADODARA GUJARAT, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…themselves establish the genuineness of a transaction and the assessee is required to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness to the satisfaction of the tax authorities, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). Similarly, the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities are Rachna Dipesh Laddha vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 7– relevant in examining the explanation of the assessee, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). Applying these settled principles, we find that the learned CIT(A) has cor…

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

ITA 44/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…10.2010  B. Kishore Kumar vs DCIT 62 Taxmann 215 (SC) dtd. 02.07.2015  B. Kishore Kumar vs DCIT (Madras HC) dtd. 03.11.2014  PCIT vs Swati Bajaj (Calcutta HC) dtd. 14.06.2022  Suman Poddar vs ITO (2019) ITAT New Delhi  NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 412 ITR 161 (SC)  CIT vs Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)  Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)  GCT Industries Ltd. vs ACIT 65 ITD 380 ITAT Mumbai Bench  Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs CIT 293 ITR 565 (Allahabad HC)  Marg Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. vs DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 130 (Madras) 9. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of t…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 134/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…alue? 8.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the principle which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT(Central)-1, Kolkata vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) [2020] 117 taxmann.com 752 (SC). 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in ignoring the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not taking cognizance of the judicial principles laid down in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500:…

ACIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7649/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7649/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2012-13 ACIT- CC 7(3) Vs Trishul Reality Infra LLP Room No. 655, 6th Floor, . Office No.1, 2nd Floor, 3, Aayakar Bhavan, MK Patel Bhuvan, 29, Vijay Road, Wadi, Dr. N.N. Shah Lane, Mumbai-400020 Chira Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 PAN – AADCT0412D (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 33/Mum/2026 (Arising out of ITA No. 7649/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 Trishul Reality Infra LLP Vs ACIT- CC 7(3) Office No.1, 2nd Floor, 3, Room No. 655, 6th Floor, Patel Bhuva…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SALEM vs. SELVA STONE EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, KRISHNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2051/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

…n account of receipt of share application money by holding that the assessee company filed details of the share application money received placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of cost of construction of building of Rs.31,57,00,000/- by holding that the assessee company duly recorded the cost of building in the books of accounts. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Ld.CIT-DR submi…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SALEM vs. SELVA STONE EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, KRISHNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

…n account of receipt of share application money by holding that the assessee company filed details of the share application money received placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of cost of construction of building of Rs.31,57,00,000/- by holding that the assessee company duly recorded the cost of building in the books of accounts. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Ld.CIT-DR submi…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SALEM vs. SELVA STONE EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, KRISHNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

…n account of receipt of share application money by holding that the assessee company filed details of the share application money received placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of cost of construction of building of Rs.31,57,00,000/- by holding that the assessee company duly recorded the cost of building in the books of accounts. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Ld.CIT-DR submi…

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 7057/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5226/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 7057/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S Shring Construction Company Pvt. Vs Acit/Dcit, Ltd., D-245, Nehru Colony, Haridwar Circle-2, Road, Dehradun Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr4560L Assessee By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita Nos. 5226/Del/2016 &

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

…the lower proceedings. His case before us is that the assessee had filed some supportive evidence to this effect. We quote Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 that mere filing of such documentary evidence does not ipso facto absolve the assessee from proving the genuineness of it’s impugned cash credits. We thus reject it’s instant latter substantive ground in very terms. This assessee’s “quantum” appeal ITA No. 5226/Del/2016 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 6. We now advert to the assessee…

M/S SHRING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 5226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5226/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 7057/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S Shring Construction Company Pvt. Vs Acit/Dcit, Ltd., D-245, Nehru Colony, Haridwar Circle-2, Road, Dehradun Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr4560L Assessee By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita Nos. 5226/Del/2016 &

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

…the lower proceedings. His case before us is that the assessee had filed some supportive evidence to this effect. We quote Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 that mere filing of such documentary evidence does not ipso facto absolve the assessee from proving the genuineness of it’s impugned cash credits. We thus reject it’s instant latter substantive ground in very terms. This assessee’s “quantum” appeal ITA No. 5226/Del/2016 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 6. We now advert to the assessee…

ACIT CC 7(4), MUMBAI vs. AAYUSH INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5915/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…ly deleted. 8. The Revenue is in appeal before us against the said order. The learned Departmental Representative supported the assessment order and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161 (SC). Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. [145 taxmann.com 27], PCIT v. Ojas Termale (P) Ltd. [156 taxmann.com 75], PCIT v. Merrygold Gems (P) Ltd. [164 taxmann.com 764], and t…

C.R. INVESTMENTS,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 900/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 68

…is assessee and the payer group which could warrant the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act going by Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 2 | P a g e 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). We further reiterate that the assessee has all along filed its entire detailed evidence which has nowhere been specifically rebutted in both the lower proceedings. We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground to delete the impugned addition of Rs.40,53,468/- in very terms. All other remaining pleadings between the pa…

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE 111, DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD vs. M/S SURYANCHAL FURNITECH, BAHADRABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 82/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…spective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. The Revenue quotes various landmark judicial precedent in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 that we ought to examine the assessee’s relevant evidence and pleadings herein 10 Suryanchal Furnitech regarding source of its’ impugned cash deposits in light of human probability(ies) after removing all blinkers. Mr. Rana next submits that the assessee herein had deposited the impugned cash during demonetization which was claimed as realized f…

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 4282/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…enue’s foregoing vehement submissions and find no reason to accept neither party’s stand in entirety. We first of all refer Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) that any evidence filed in the course of income tax proceedings has to be examined in light of human 11 | P a g e ITA No.3609 & 4282/Del/2025 probabilities, after removing all blinkers and that mere submission of documentary evidence does not itself discharge an assessee’s onus to prove genuineness of such cash credits. Learned counsel co…

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

ITA 3609/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…enue’s foregoing vehement submissions and find no reason to accept neither party’s stand in entirety. We first of all refer Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) that any evidence filed in the course of income tax proceedings has to be examined in light of human 11 | P a g e ITA No.3609 & 4282/Del/2025 probabilities, after removing all blinkers and that mere submission of documentary evidence does not itself discharge an assessee’s onus to prove genuineness of such cash credits. Learned counsel co…

M/S SAPPHIRE FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 594/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…e AO was only submitted by the assessee and none of these details came from any of these share applicants. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the following findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC): - ITA No.594/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2012-13) 11 “11. The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are : i. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to mak…

VARIS MAHENDRABHAI DOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2195/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2195/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o. Divyang Shah & Co., Ward-4(2)(3), Chartered Accountant, 201, Ahmedabad Devashish Complex, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN No.ADPPD4435N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Divyang Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR 10.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA…

SURENDER SINGH SANGWAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, SONIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…the loan creditors and the onus lies upon the assessee was not discharged. He thus prayed for the confirmation of the additions made. Reliance is placed on the judgment of hon’ble Supreme court in the case of PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161 (SC). 9. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, it is seen that assessee has filed all the relevant details of the loan creditors and discharged the onus lies upon him which includes affidavits wherein the loan creditors have duly confirmed the loan given to the assessee, copy of…

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1260/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…uiry carried out by the AO under s. 133(6) was also noticed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, declined to grant relief to the assessee mainly in the light of judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 9.1. It is evident from the record that the assessee, on its part, has filed clinching documentary evidences to support the source of loan received. No legal obligation is prescribed upon the assessee in law to prove the creditworthiness of ‘source of source’ of receipts obtained by the assessee in view o…

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

ITA 1259/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…uiry carried out by the AO under s. 133(6) was also noticed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, declined to grant relief to the assessee mainly in the light of judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 161 (SC). Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 9.1. It is evident from the record that the assessee, on its part, has filed clinching documentary evidences to support the source of loan received. No legal obligation is prescribed upon the assessee in law to prove the creditworthiness of ‘source of source’ of receipts obtained by the assessee in view o…

Showing 1–20 of 300 · Page 1 of 15

...