Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries

294 ITR 610High Court2007#3221 most cited

What is Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries authority for?

The principle of peak credit is not applicable where deposits remain unexplained under section 68, or where there has been no transaction of deposits and repayment between a particular depositor and the assessee.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries · 294 ITR 610 · peak credit theory · section 68 · unexplained deposits · accommodation entry · creditworthiness of creditor · cash credits

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 69Section 144Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 256(2)section 106section 256section 124(3)(a)section 113section 124(3)income tax settlement commissionsection 124section 131(1a)creditworthiness of the creditorsurvey under section 133a

Judgments citing Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

ITA 46/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

ITA 134/RJT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

ITA 4/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…ash deposit so made in the bank account. In assessee’s case, against cash deposits cheques were issued to some other entities. For above view, reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries 294 ITR 610 (All) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case CIT vs. D.K.Garg ITA No.115/2005 dated 04.08.2017. (ii) As the amount of cash credits were standing in the names of different persons which all along the assessee had been claiming as genuine deposit, withdrawal / payment of amount to different set of persons would not at all entitle the applicant to cla…

SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…ash deposit so made in the bank account. In assessee’s case, against cash deposits cheques were issued to some other entities. For above view, reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries 294 ITR 610 (All) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case CIT vs. D.K.Garg ITA No.115/2005 dated 04.08.2017. (ii) As the amount of cash credits were standing in the names of different persons which all along the assessee had been claiming as genuine deposit, withdrawal / payment of amount to different set of persons would not at all entitle the applicant to cla…

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 77/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 76/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 75/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 74/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SANJAY SINGH, NOIDA

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 2276/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Sanjay Singh, Income Tax, B-28, Gamma-I, Central Circle-1, Greater Noida, Noida (UP) Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) PAN: ADSPN2029H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.2276/Del/2023, A.Y. 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Sanjay Singh, Income Tax, B-28, Gamma-I, Central Circle-1, Greater Noida, Noida (UP) Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) PAN: ADSPN2029H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.84/Del/2024, A.Y. 2016-17 (A…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GREATER NOIDA vs. SANJAY SINGH, NOIDA

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 6942/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Sanjay Singh, Income Tax, B-28, Gamma-I, Central Circle-1, Greater Noida, Noida (UP) Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) PAN: ADSPN2029H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.2276/Del/2023, A.Y. 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Sanjay Singh, Income Tax, B-28, Gamma-I, Central Circle-1, Greater Noida, Noida (UP) Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) PAN: ADSPN2029H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.84/Del/2024, A.Y. 2016-17 (A…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…posits and Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee (Assessment year 1979-80] as per the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) [21-02-2005] It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. D.K. Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018) 300 CTR 510 (Delhi)[04- 08-2017) as under:- "17. The premise underlying the concept of peak credit is the squaring up of the…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…posits and Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee (Assessment year 1979-80] as per the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) [21-02-2005] It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. D.K. Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018) 300 CTR 510 (Delhi)[04- 08-2017) as under:- "17. The premise underlying the concept of peak credit is the squaring up of the…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…posits and Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee (Assessment year 1979-80] as per the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) [21-02-2005] It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. D.K. Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018) 300 CTR 510 (Delhi)[04- 08-2017) as under:- "17. The premise underlying the concept of peak credit is the squaring up of the…

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…posits and Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee (Assessment year 1979-80] as per the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) [21-02-2005] It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. D.K. Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018) 300 CTR 510 (Delhi)[04- 08-2017) as under:- "17. The premise underlying the concept of peak credit is the squaring up of the…

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…posits and Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee (Assessment year 1979-80] as per the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) [21-02-2005] It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. D.K. Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR 757 (Delhi)/[2018) 300 CTR 510 (Delhi)[04- 08-2017) as under:- "17. The premise underlying the concept of peak credit is the squaring up of the…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. KUMAR BROTHERS CO. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7900/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. KUMAR BROTHERS CO. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7899/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. KUMAR BROTHERS CO. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7898/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2