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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 148Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumpreponderance of probabilitysection 31paper companyaddition u/s 68survey under section 133aaddition under section 68share application moneygenuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

Shri Krishna Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2878/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2878/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Krishna Charitable Trust, Vs Jcit, C/O-M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, Range-2, South Extension, Part-I, Ghaziabad New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagts8457F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 68

…is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Reliance is placed on the 5 Krishna Charitable Trust decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (SC) 501TR 1. Reliance is further placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts as under:- (i) Vasantibai N. Shah vs CIT (BOM) 213 ITR 805 (ii) Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. Vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112 (iii) CIT Vs Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal) 232 ITR 820 Thus in the light of the above facts, it is held that the AO w…

ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata vs. Anupam Nandi, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 774/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.774/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-46(1) -Vs.- Shri Anupam Nandi Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit,Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ar

For Appellant: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR
Section 28

…ision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 (SC) in support of his contentions. The ld also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT reported in (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), 10. In response to this, the ld AR argued that the deposits of Rs. 49,50,000/- in the books of the assessee has been duly confirmed by Mr Anal Kanti Dey and hence no addition is called for in this regard. With regard to the non-appearance of these advances from customers in the books of the assessee prior to financial ITA No.774/Kol/2012 S…

Integrated Database & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1679/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2004-05 Integrated Database & Research Ito, Ward 11(4), Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. F – 13, 2Nd Floor, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Pan : Aaaci 2994 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca Respondent By : Shri S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-10-2016 : 01-12-2016 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148

…confirmed the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Himalaya International Ltd.. He also relied on the decision in the cases of CIT vs. Rathod, 212 ITR 390 (Raj) and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938. He observed that the onus was on the assessee company to substantiate its claim of activity of business of being carried out by these companies viz. M/s Basant Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Right Choice Construction Pvt. Ltd.. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the following reasons :- 5 Inspite of correspondence done with Mini…

Alvi Tech Services P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan

ITA 7481/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7481/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Alvi Tech Services Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shivam Palace, Income Tax – Circle 1, V. G-3, Chinchpada Road, Kalyan. Kalyan (East) – 421 306. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafca5622A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…/- whereas the opening capital as on 01-04-2005 was shown at Rs.5,33,01,281.48 and thus the assessee has increased the capital by Rs.3,53,40,307/- without any basis. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan D Hatti v. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. Thus, the A.O. held that the claim of the assessee for such huge capital balance is therefore not supported by any documentary evidence. Thus, the share subscribed…

Prashant Toraskar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1)

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

ITA 5813/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Prashant Toraskar Asst. Cit-25(1), बनाम/ 101, 1St Floor, Sunflower Chs, Mumbai St. Francis Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt 5707 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun Ghia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.6.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 07.3.2013. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Is Explained By Way Of An Affidavit Dated 11.4.2016 By The Appellant As Caused Under The Bona Fide Impression Of Having Been Filed In Time; He Being Engaged In Identifying A Counsel For Advice & Representation Before The Tribunal And, Thus, In Filing The Appeal, Resulting In It Being

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)

…ing cases, holding the burden of proof to be on the assessee, and in the absence of an explanation no onus lay on the Revenue to show if the credit is from a particular source: 1) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); 2) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938(SC); 3) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); 4) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); 3 Prashant Toraskar vs. Asst. CIT 5) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and 6) A. Govindarjulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 4. We have heard…

Vijay Jayantilal Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

ITA 192/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvijay Jayantlal Choksi, 3 Satyam Building, 1St Floor, Juhutara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 Pan:Aajpc 7858B ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…worthiness and genuineness of the creditor. But in the present case, the assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove these conditions. To strengthen the view of the reliance is placed on the following decision. (a) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194(SC) (c) CIT vs. Ganapati Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) CIT vs. M.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumat Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) In view of the facts and circumstances and various court decisions on this issue, it is…

Imtiyaz Amirullah Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 2018/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2018/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Imtiyaz Amirullah Khan Ito-17(2)(4), Gr. Floor, R. No. 1A, Mumbai बनाम/ Near Municiple Market, Ch-011, Vs. Gate No. 6, Sewree Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Azpk 9500 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shekhar Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.8.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 26.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.2.2016, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010- 11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2. The Sole Issue Arising In The Instant Case Is The Extent Of Income Liable To Be Brought To Tax Against Undisclosed Cash Deposits In The Assessee’S Bank Account With Icici Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai (Account Number 087401500061).

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ssee being, however, unable to furnish the names and addresses of the parties from whom the purchases and sales were claimed, the said explanation was found not acceptable by the A.O. who, relying on the decisions in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 151 (All), treated the entire cash deposited (Rs. 88.45 lacs) as income assessable u/s. 68 of the Act. However, as the assessee had already disclosed the turnover of Rs.15.62 lacs,…

ITO 25(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Bhavna N Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 69A

…right and which he has rightfully done so by crediting the same in his books of accounts. 7.6. The AO while structuring the additions u/s 69A has relied on the following decisions: LakhmichandBaijnath v CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) / Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v R S Rathore [1995] 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) 7.7. In the case of the above mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court, the appellant had received / credited a certain sum of money in his books of accounts for which certain explanation was given by the assessee which w…

A.C.I.T Cir - 3, Asansol vs. Sri Bireswar Kar, Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

ITA 1454/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…ter of a school in the district of Burdwan. The money he put in the bank represented accumulation of his earnings as a teacher.The AO however, observed that it is well settled in the cases of CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 and Shankar Industries Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689 and in many other cases by different courts of law of India that in order the discharge the onus, the assessee must prove the followings:- i) The identity of the creditor, ii) The capacity of the creditor to advance money, and iii) The genuineness of the transaction. There mere furnishing of par…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Ramakant Gaggar, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1286/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit, Cc-8(1), Shri Ramakant Gaggar, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, 302, Gaurav Apart. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gokuldham, Vs. M.K. Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Abkpg9952C

Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT, CC-8(1), Shri Ramakant Gaggar, Room No.656, 6th Floor, 302, Gaurav Apart. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gokuldham, Vs. M.K. Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.ABKPG9952C राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Om Prakash Meena-DR None "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by 24/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 24/06/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Orde…

Udayraj N. Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2868/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Udayraj N. Pal Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 25B, New Kant Wadi 304, Piramal Chambers Vs. Perry Cross Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan - Alqpp2215D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…or examination before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings as well as during the remand proceedings, thus, it has failed to discharge its onus. To strengthen the view of the A.O., reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (a) Roshan Di Hat Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 72 ITR 194 (SC) (c) CIT Vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) Keeping in view the above facts, & circumstances, it is held that the assessee has failed to s…

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e assessment orders dated 07.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO relied upon the following decisions while arriving at the conclusion as set out above: a) Aluminium Small Industries Limited v. ITO (2006) 103 ITD 142(Kol.) b) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT , 107 ITR 938(SC) c) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT , 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad , 72 ITR 194(SC) e) Sumati Dayal v. CIT , 80 Taxman 89(SC) f) CIT v. M Ganapathi Mudaliar , 53 ITR 623(SC) g) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC) h) CIT v. Calcutta Agency Limited, 19 ITR 191(SC) i) CIT v. Transport Corporation of India Limit…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Faisal Abbas, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6934/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

…e and source, the same can be deemed as income, and the Revenue is not obliged to locate the source of the receipt and, as such, there is no further burden on the Revenue to show that the income is from a particular source (refer: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977]107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC)). At the same time, however, the word used in section 68 is ‘may’, and not ‘shall’. As such, the assessment of income may not necessarily follow an unsatisfactory explanation with regard to a credit in accounts, and the Ass…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Smt. Madhu Choudhary, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3515/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3515/Del/2012 A.Yr. : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-1, Smt. Madhu Choudhary, 160, Sector-14, Rohtak Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak Vs. (Pan: Aaupc9590R) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…t appreciating the facts discussed in detailed by AO in assessment order. 1 2. That the appellant craves for permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. Covered by:- i) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) ii) CIT vs. M. Ganpathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) iii) CIT vs. R.S. Rathore (1995) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Delhi drawing salary and declared total income of Rs. 3,32,310/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI of Rs. 1.00 Lakh. 2.1 As p…

Iss Hicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 45/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Rachana AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri E. Shankaran
Section 144Section 68

…nsaction. Regarding the four creditors for Rs.2,10,00,000/-, the appellant has to prove identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the creditors in view of the following decision: i) Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT(SC) reported in 107 ITR 938; ii) C.Kant & Co. Vs. CIT(Calcutta) 126 ITR 63; iii) Dhanalakhsmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CIT(AP) 228 ITR 780; (iv) CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 v) Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(Kerala) 229 ITR 548 8.6 In view of the above decisions, the appellant has to prove all the three conditions i.e. identity of the creditor, creditworth…

M/S Transtron Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2765/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta, Vice Before Shri G.C. Gupta & Before Shri G.C. Gupta Before Shri G.C. Gupta , Vice & Shri Shri Prashant Maharishi Shri Shri Prashant Maharishi Prashant Maharishi, , , , Accountant Prashant Maharishi Accountantmember Member

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Modi, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 263

…merely taking papers on record is not sufficient. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional CIT, Delhi I, and Others – [1975] 99 ITR 375 and of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT, Delhi – [1977] 107 ITR 938 in support of the case of the Revenue. He relied on the order of learned CIT. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A). Regarding the first issue of trade creditors and share application money, we find that the Assessing Officer has served on the assessee a notice u/s 142(…

M/S. Rajsadan Overseas Sales(P)Ltd, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

…TO Vs. Sky jet Aviation (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Ahd- TM) 71 ITD 95, CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, Oriental Wire Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 131 ITR 688, Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481 etc. It is also a fact that mere filing of Inco…