How many judgments cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT?

477 judgments on BharatTax cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (107 ITR 938), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE, Section 69A.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

107 ITR 938Supreme Court of India1977#147 most cited

What is Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT authority for?

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

477

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT · Section 68 · assessee onus of proof · cash credits · genuineness of transaction · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · additions to income · unexplained money · Section 143(3) · Section 147

Also reported as

2 SCC 378

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 148 Section 144

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof source of source share capital and share premium preponderance of probability section 31 paper company addition u/s 68 survey under section 133a addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota

ITA 1057/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

…ssee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settle…

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 999/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

M/S. D. K. Industries, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 34(3), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1086/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 M/S D. K. Industries V/S. Income Tax Officer, 2, Clive Ghat Street, 3Rd Ward-34(3), 110, Shanti Floor, Kolkata-700001 Pally, Aayakar Bhawan, [Pan No.Aabfd 9250 E] Purva, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri K.L. Bothra, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P. Mukherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 02.03.2017, Passed In Case No.119/Cit(A)-10/Wd-34(3)/2013-14/Kol, Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Adding An Amount Of ₹22 Lac As Income From Undisclosed Sources In Assessment Order Dated 08.03.2013, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Vehemently Arguing Against & In Favour Of Impugned Addition Of Income From Undisclosed Source Of ₹22 Lac. Case File Perused. 2. Both The Learned Representatives Take Us To Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Reading As Under:-

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to old that it is the income of the assessee and no further bu9rden lies on the revenue to hoe that the income is form any particular source – Rashan Di Hatti v. it [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); Kale Khan Mohannad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). (iv) The onus is on the assessee to discharge the onus that the cash creditor in a man of means to allow the cash credit. (v) In view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/S Oracle Solutions Services (India) Pvt Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/126/2018HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Ms.Justice J.M.Khazi

Section 138Section 378Section 378(4)

…his arguments, learned counsel for accused has relied upon the following decisions: i. Criminal Revision Petition No. 106/2005 dated 1/11/2006(Del.H.C) (Virender Singh v/s Laxmi Narain & another) Cases Referred: (a) Mohd. Salimuddin v/s Misri Lal(1986)2 SCC 378, (b) Sita Ram V/s Radha Bai, (1968)1 SCR 805, (c) Kuju Collieries Ltd., V/s Jharkhand Mines Ltd., (1974)2 SCC 533, (d) Tarsem Singh v/s Sukhminder Singh, 1998(2) All MR 528(s.c.), (1998)3 SCC 471, ii. 2005 Cri.L.J.4095 (Kerala H.C.) J.Daniel v/s State of Kerala, Money Lending without License iii. 2010 Cri.L.J. 121…

Anish Tandon vs. C.I.T. IX

ITA/592/2005HC Delhi30 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 69Section 80Section 80H

…facie evidence is established by assessee and it is not accepted by A.O. a duty is cast upon him to make an inquiry and investigation and disprove the case set by the assessee. This duty cannot be discharged by placing extraordinary onus on the assessee. 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti, 1984 152 ITA 592/2005 page 3 of 8 ITR 507 (Delhi) Sona Electronic Co. (1996) 59 ITO 417 (Chd) Smt. Narinder Bedi (Supra). xxx xxx xxx Thus since it is accepted that Benu Export is wholly engaged in export of garments, income of which is exempt u/s 80 HHC of the Act and assessee admitt…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajesh M Shah(HUF), Mumbai

ITA 7105/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7105/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya

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

…erest on the loan taken through accommodation entries was genuine." 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938, Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT(SC) 50 ITR 1 and Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors vs. CIT(SC) 49 ITR 112." 4. The appellant prays that the order of the Learned CIT(A) on the above grounds be set side and that of the AO be restored. 3 I.T.A. No. 7105/Mum/2016 Rajesh M Shah (HUF) 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter or delete any ground or a…

Ajay Malshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.641/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin M. Furia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, DR

Section 143Section 68

…ng case laws to come to the aforesaid conclusion:- a) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 b) Vasntibai N Shah v. CIT (Bom) 213 ITR 805 c) Sreelekha Banerjee & Oths. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112 d) Cit v. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 e) Roshan De Hatti v. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 Hence additions were made by the AO in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. Similarly interest paid to these three lending parties to the tune of Rs. 7,55,411/- was also disallowed by the AO as un- secured loans transactions with these three parties were already held by AO…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source [Roshan Di Haiti v. CIT[1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)]. 6.3.20 The initial burden to prove the genuineness of cash credit lies on the taxpayer. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature [Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT[195…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilip Chimanlal Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7079/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Virendar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya

Section 132

…as under: 1) H. R. Mehta (in ITA No. 58 of 2001 vide order dated 30.06.2016); 2) Andaman Timber Industries (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 vide order dated 02.09.2015); 3) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC); 4) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); 5) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); 6) Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj); 7) CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevikhadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom); 8) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd. [2012] 51 SOT 234; 9) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H); 10) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Balkiwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj); 11) CIT vs. K…

Smt. Ruchi Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2811/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

…lery is as “streedhan” on marriage or other occasions and same could not be said to be unexplained jewellery. The basis that assessees have not filed wealth tax returns cannot be a ground to make an addition in view of the judgment of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC). Having regard to the foregoing we hold that additions were made in the hands of assessee are not in accordance with law and therefore the same are deleted and accordingly, the ground no. 2 to 4 raised in Radha Mittal’s case and ground no. 1 to 3 in Ruchie Mittal’s case stand allowed. 9. However, the ground No. 1 was not pressed in the ca…

Smt. Radha Mital, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2810/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

The Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur vs. Sh Joginder Singh, Gurdaspur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 148/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)

Section 143(3)

…1. Bank of Maharashtra 9361 22,10,000/- 2. 3. ICICI Bank 501599 43,21,000/- 4. State Bank of Patiala 7217 43,000/- Total 66,23,500/- Reliance for the purpose was placed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the decisions in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); and Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) (refer paras 2 and 3 of the assessment order). In appeal, the assessee explained that he is in the business of manufacture of batteries, maintaining accounts. All the four bank accoun…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Jivesh Developers & Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…assessee‟s claim of deduction 29 M/s. Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd. under section 80IB(10) of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Roshan D. Hatti v/s CIT, [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); ii) Mohan Singh v/s ACIT, [2017] 85 taxmann.com 219; and iii) Dinesh Parikh v/s CIT, [2011] 12 taxmann.com 490; 18. The learned Authorised Representative strongly supporting the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that in the course of appellate proceedings learned Commissioner (Appeals) did request the Assessing Office…

Subramanian Rajan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 6, Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2418/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2418/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Acit, Shri Subramanian Rajan, Non Corporate Circle 6, New No.26/1, Old No.22/1, Chennai. Deivasigamani Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. Pan: Acfpr4402A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant By ""यथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…for supply of materials. The assessee had also furnished the PAN numbers of the above mentioned persons. However rejecting the submission of the assessee and by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT reported in 107 ITR 938 and Kalekhan Mohameed Harif Vs. CIT reported in 50 ITR 1, the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.1,53,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO by agreeing with his view and also by relying in the following decisions 6.41. In [2015] 60 taxmann.com 37…

Ankit Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3395/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3395/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ankit Gupta Ito, Wd. 30(1)(1), बनाम/ 201/1, Raheja Tipco Height, C-13, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E), Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 097 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Anopg 5238 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. C. Jain , Shri Ajay Daga & Shri Navneet Lahoti ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 11.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 20.02.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.5 Lacs Out Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.1853000/-.

For Appellant: Shri R. C. Jain , Shri Ajay Daga &For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 2(22)(e)

…ficer also noticed from assessee’s account that the cash is deposited and immediately cheque is issued to M/s. Gigal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. which is a family concern. The Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Roshan di Hatti vs. CIT (107 ITR 938) (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) (SC) relevant to the facts of the case. 4. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) asked the Assessing Officer to file the remand report on the fresh submission of the assessee. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not find the Assessing Officer’s…

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Champalal D. Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2556/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…roperty, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source [Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)]. 7.3.9 The initial burden to prove the genuineness of cash credit lies on the taxpayer. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipt's are of an assessable nature [A. Govindarajulu Mudallar v. CIT […

M/S. Anila Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3415/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142Section 144ASection 245(4)Section 251Section 292CSection 68

…s of account and where nature of source of receipt could not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it was open to the Revenue to hold that it was income of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following cases: " Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT – (1977) 107 ITR 938 " Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT – (1963) 50 ITR 1 " Sumati Dayal vs. CIT – (1995) 80 Taxman 89 / 214 ITR 801 " CIT vs. R.S. Rathore – (1995) 212 ITR 309 " Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. Pvt. Ltd. – (1985) 154 ITR 244; and " Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT – 136 Taxman 213 (Gauwahati). He also observed that various persons / concerns of S.K. Gupta Group…

ITO, Pudukkottai vs. A.Anbukkannan, Pudukkottai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1871/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Shri. A. Anbukkannan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.744, Periyar Nagar, Ward I(1) Rajagopalapuram, Purukottai. Pudukottai 622 003. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1871/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. A. Anbukkannan, Ward I(1) No.744, Periyar Nagar, Purukottai Rajagopalapuram, Pudukottai 622 003. [Pan Agppa 7635N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri.S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 131(1)

…ieved. He held that assessee was unable to produce satisfactory evidence for the debit and credit entries in the bank account. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT 107 ITR 938, ld. Assessing Officer held that onus was on the assessee to prove source for the money claimed to have been received by him. Further, as per ld. Assessing Officer claim of the assessee that withdrawals from the bank were recycled was never substantiated with evidence. He treated the entire cash deposits of "3,67,75,800/- as unexplained income o…

A.Anbukkannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Pudukkottai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1731/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri.S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 131(1)

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Aruna Hotels Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3108/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate

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

…this primary onus has been discharge the onus would shift to the AO contesting the claim. In the instant case the primary onus remains discharged by the appellant and hence the ratio in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 would apply. Similarly, the ratio in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) would apply. In that case it was held by the Apex Court that once the credit was owned up the same could not be brought to tax in the hands of the company and the Revenue was free to proceed to examine the creditworthiness or otherwise of the person owning up the…