How many judgments cite Shankar Industries v. CIT?

117 judgments on BharatTax cite Shankar Industries v. CIT (114 ITR 689), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shankar Industries v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 69, Section 142(1).

Shankar Industries v. CIT

114 ITR 689High Court1978#907 most cited

What is Shankar Industries v. CIT authority for?

To explain cash credits in books under Section 68, the assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, their capacity to advance the money, and the genuineness of the transaction. Failure to establish these three elements results in the addition being upheld.

117

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

Shankar Industries v CIT · 114 ITR 689 · Section 68 Income Tax Act · cash credits onus of proof · identity capacity genuineness · creditor's creditworthiness · unexplained share capital · burden of proof section 68 · addition under section 68 · unexplained cash credits

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 69 Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source section 31 paper company creditworthiness of the creditor share capital and share premium section 251(2)section 251(1)(a)onus of proof live link admission of additional evidence addition u/s 68 entry operator

Judgments citing Shankar Industries v. CIT

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…ade out a case that the amount standing in their name or in credit did not belong to lender but belong to the assessee, which was prima facie case made out department in both the judgments relied upon by the Ld. AO. (ix) Shanker Industries V. Addl CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.): While placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, Ld. AO has tried to substantiate its action under Section-68 of the Act. However, Ld. AO failed to discharge its onus, as laid down by the Hon’ble Court in this judgment. The relevant para from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: “We would like to observe that the law on this po…

A.J.M. and Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4567/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S A.J.M. & Co. 801, Dy. Cit-15(1)(1), Panchratna Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm0310R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s A.J.M. & Co. 801, Dy. CIT-15(1)(1), Panchratna Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Churchgate, Mumbai. PAN No. AAKFM0310R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 08/03/2019 Date of pronouncement : 25/03/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09. The appeal is directed against the or…

Kathala Sankar Ravi Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhaptnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blekathala Sankar Ravi Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), D.No. 45-55-5, Abid Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Afupk 0648 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murty – Sr.DR

Section 69

…rother Shri K. Satya Rao. The Assessing Officer considered the explanation and not agreed with the same and by invoking section 69 of the Act and also reliying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sankar Industries Vs. CIT [(1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.)], addition was made in the hands of the assessee. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has made a detailed submission which is as under:- “M/s. Mother Theresa Educational Society is the institution where assessee's daughter Ms. Nikitha did here bachelors degree in Medicine during the academic years commencing from 2012. Survey…

M/S Sashi Cables Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 793/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 263

…on, It is only when the assessee discharges this primary onus, that onus shifts to the Department. Merely establishing the identity of the creditor is not sufficient. This is the ratio in a large number of decisions including Shankar Industries vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal); C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT, (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal); Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT, (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal); Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal); CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal); M.A. UnneeriKutti Vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker), Special Leave petition di…

ACIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S Rana Papers Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

In the result ground, number four of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3402/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Rana Papers Ltd, Circle-1, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar Pan: Aaacr7902B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 68

…e case and by ignoring the judicial pronouncement reported in the following cases:- a. Shree Lekha Banarjee Vs. CIT,49 ITR 112 (SC) b. Ram Lai Agarwal Vs CIT, 280 ITR 547 (Alld) c. ITO Vs. Rai Chand Kothari (HUF) 39TTJ (Tribunal) d. Shanker Inds. Vs. CIT, 114 ITR 689 (Cal) e. Prakash Textiles Agency Vs. CIT, 121 ITR 89 f. C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT, 126 ITR 63 (Cal) 6. The order of the CIT (A) be set aside and that of AO be restored.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of angles, channels et cetera. It filed its return of inco…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lotus Grih Nirman P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3998/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 8(2)(2), M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Room No. 212/216A, 2Nd Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 419, Laxmi Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate, Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400059. Pan No. Aabcl0864D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…, (ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money; and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in the decision in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. However, we find that the AO has failed in the instant case to find fault with the submissions made by the assessee. The AO could have made investigations to find ou…

The Asst. CIT, Guntur vs. Sri Kavuri Srinivasa Rao, Guntur

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 163/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.331/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Sreepathi Agros & Land Guntur Developers Pvt. Ltd. Sunil Towers, Gujjanagundla Guntur [Pan : Aamcs8668M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.163/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. Sri Kavuri Srinivasa Rao Guntur Legally Represented By Gpa Holder Sri Kavuri Prasada Rao C/O M/S Sreepathi Agros & Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Sunil Towers, Gujjanagundla Guntur [Pan :Easpk8951G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri M Madhusudhan, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2018 28.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudhan, AR

Section 68

…no reason to suspect the credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shankar Industries Vs. CIT [114 ITR 689], Hon’be Madras High Court in the case of S.Hastimal Vs. CIT [49 ITR 273]. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is the case of revenue that the assessee had not explained the genuineness of transaction with matching dates f…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Sreepathi Agros & Land Developrs Pvt..Ltd, Guntur

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 331/VIZ/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudhan, AR

Section 68

K Vrushali, Thane vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. K. Vrushali, 4-D, Income Tax Officer- Regency Park, Eden Woods, Vs. 11(1)(2), Mumbai Pawar Nagar Thane- 400610. Pan No. Agypk5387J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. K. Vrushali, 4-D, Income Tax Officer- Regency Park, Eden Woods, Vs. 11(1)(2), Mumbai Pawar Nagar Thane- 400610. PAN No. AGYPK5387J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 09/08/2018 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner…

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

…unt. (ii) In the case of cash credit entry it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transactions. C Kant & Co. v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal). (iii) The law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him/her. Where the nature and source of a receipt whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to old that it is the income of the ass…

ITO, Dehradun vs. Shri Inder Singh, Dehradun

ITA 2559/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2005-06 ITO, WARD 1(3) VS. INDER SINGH, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, C/O BHARAT CLOTH HOUSE, 13-A SUBHASH ROAD, MAIN BAZAR, DOIWALA, DEHRADUN DEHRADUN (PAN: AWKPS415F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR Respondent by: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date of hearing: 31.05.2018 Date of pronouncement: 29.08.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This Appeal is preferred by the Department against the order dat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…ss of the companies which did not have any source of profit and were not in any actual business. Therefore, merely establishing the identity of the creditor was not enough. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Shankar Industries Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C Kant & Co. Vs CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Prakash Textile Agency Vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. Vs CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial & Industral Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " M.A. Unneeri Kutty Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker) " CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.…

Mukund Kumar Mantri, Siliguri vs. I.to.WD - 1(3), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1878/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member A.Y 2007-08 Mukund Kumar Mantri Vs. Income-tax Officer PAN:ADGPM 4585P Ward 1(3), Jalpaiguri [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant/ Assessee by : Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, ld.AR Respondent/ Department by : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 10-04-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04-07-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: The above appeal by the Assessee is against the order dt. 05-09- 2012 of the CIT-A, Jalpaiguri for the A.Y 2007-…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…failed to prove the genuineness of the credit. Accordingly, relying on the decisions in Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) (in ITA No. 159 of 2016, dated 20.07.2016); Kamal Motors v. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155 (Raj); and C. Kant and Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal), the said credits were added u/s. 68, and confirmed in appeal for the same reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR would rely on an affidavit (dated 23.08.2016) from the creditor as well as on the amount having been advanced through his bank account. The ld. DR, on the other hand, while relying on the…

DCIT, Hazaribagh vs. Sri Rajendra Lal, Hazaribagh

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 78/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Cross Objection No.05/Ran/2018 A.Y. : 2009-2010 Shri Rajendra Lal, Vs Acit, Circle-2, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Hazaribag Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) . & A.Y. : 2009-2010 Acit, Circle-2, Hazaribag Vs Shri Rajendra Lal, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) .

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…Examination whether the credits can be treated as income of the assessee is based on the three pillar test of identity, genuineness And CO No.05/Ran/2018 and creditworthiness. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shankar Industries v CIT reported in 114 ITR 689 ( Cal) has held that the law on this point is now well settled. It is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof includes proof of the identity of his creditor, the capacity of such creditor to advance the money and, lastly, the genuineness of the transaction.…

Pratik Syntex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6690/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Pratik Syntex Private Ito 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar V. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaecp3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143(3)

…n 429/30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi), g) CIT v. N.R. Protfolio P. Ltd. [2014] 222 taxman 157/42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi)., h) CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820(Cal.) i) C.Kant & Co. v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63(Cal.) j) Shankar Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689(Cal.) 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 08-09-2016 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has come in an appeal before the tribunal . The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment year under consideration is AY 2012-13 and the addition have been made towards unexplained share capital and share premium to the tune of Rs.…

Gn Resound India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gn Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12Th Floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccg3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…, (ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money, and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced the evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid transaction, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890. In the instant case the appellant has failed to adduce the evidence before the AO to establish the prima facie of the aforesaid transaction as evident from the finding at para 8 hereinbefore. It has been held in Govindarajulu v. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC); Lakhmichand v. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC); Kalekhan v. CIT 50 ITR 1…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…0 and Khushara Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 4247/Del.2009 iii. Major Metal Ltd. vs. Union of India 207 taxmann.com 185 (Bom) iv. Bisaka Shares Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 1493/Kol/2013 v. CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) vi. Shankar Industries vs. CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal) vii. C. Kant & Co. vs. CIT 126 ITR 63 (Cal) viii. Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT 121 ITR 890 (SC) ix. Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. vs. CIT 131 ITR 688 (Cal) 9 M/s. Jasamrit Constructions P. Ltd. x. CIT vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal) xi. M.A. Unneeri Kutti vs. CIT 198 ITR 147 (Ker) xii. CIT vs. Precisi…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " Precision Finance Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) " Nizam Wood Agency Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT (198)) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Ind. (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercials & Ind. Co. (1991) 187 ITR 597 (Cal) " M. A. Uneer Kutly Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) " CIT Vs Jalan Timbers 22…

M/S. Stride Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5349/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5349/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Stride Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 100-K, Basement Milap Ward-9(2), Bhawan, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs4888A Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 68

…axmann.com 328 (Jhar.) dated MAY 3, 2011 2. Hacienda Farms (P.) ltd, v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011] 198 TAXMAN 509 (Delhi) 3. Yash Pal Goel vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh IT APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2008 4. Shankar Industries vs. CIT(Cal) 114 ITR 689 5. CIT Vs Presicion Fianance Private Limited (Cal) 208 ITR 465 Hence the amount of Rs.10,03,46,128/- is treated as income of the assessee as unexplained credit as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act in view of the detailed discussion above.” 8. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assess…