Shankar Industries Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT (Cal)

140 ITR 148High Court1983#8747 most cited

What is Shankar Industries Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT (Cal) authority for?

The assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, their capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transaction to discharge the primary onus. Merely proving the creditor's identity or that the transaction was by cheque is insufficient for discharge of onus, and the addition under Section 68 will be upheld.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shankar Industries Vs CIT · section 68 · addition under section 68 · creditworthiness of the creditor · genuineness of the transaction · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · identity of creditor · capacity of creditor · cash credit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 115BBESection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoraddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionsection 133unexplained cash creditsection 115bbesection 133(6)section 68transfersection 15person

Judgments citing Shankar Industries Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT (Cal)

Kemox Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 221/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 142Section 250Section 68

…copies of ITR of creditors and copies of their financial statement, then only burden shifts to the department. For this proposition the reliance is placed on following decisions: Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta). Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC). CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC). CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta). Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP). Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Тахтап 481 (Kerela). 12.1 The appellant is heavily relying on the documents such as copy of ITR, financial statement, bank statement, etc. filed by him durin…

Mohan Dagadu Chougale, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1312/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…by submitting supporting documents for above three ingredients, then only burden shifts to the department. For this proposition the reliance is placed on following decisions: * Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta) * Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC) * CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) * CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) * Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) * Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Taxman 481 (Kerela) 32. The facts of the present case clearly suggest that the appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus of proving the capacity…

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ch letters did not therefore carry any conviction about the explanation of the assessee. Loan amount was rightly held as assessee's own undisclosed income. 8.21 In the cases of Shankar Industries Vs CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Hari Chand Virender Paul Vs CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148, CIT Vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 CIT Vs Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465 Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780 and in the case of Sanil K.M.P. Vs CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of credit-mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not suffic…

Dy. Commmissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Prasad Shetty, Sion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

…ee by relying on the judgment of Lovely Exports (Supra.), whereas it is known that the above judgment has been challenged time and again and various judicial precedents such as Shankar Industries vs CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Hari Chand Virender Paul vs CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148 and CIT vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 have been ruled in favor of the revenue?. 4. In case of Mangilal Jain vs ITO (MAD) 315 ITR 105 and CIT us Precision Finance (P) Ltd. 208 ITR 465 the Hon'ble Courts have reiterated that "Assessee must prove identity of credits, capacity of creditor to advance money and genuineness of transaction." And as su…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…elhi)] 8. Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (Supreme Court of India) 35-43 9. Shankar Industries vs. CIT[1978] 114 ITR 689(High Court of Calcutta) 44-47 10. Hari Chand Virendra Pal Vs. CIT (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) [1982]11 48-50 Taxman 134 /140 ITR 148 11. CIT vs. Biju Patnaik[1986]26 Taxman 324 (SC)/[1986] 160 ITR 674(SC) 51-59 12. Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs.CIT, 93 Taxman 561/ 228 ITR 780(High 60-63 Court of Andhra Pradesh) 13. Sanil K.M.P vs. CIT [2009] 177 Taxman 481(Kerala)[04.06.2008] 64-65 22 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Paradise Properties In view of th…

Lokenath Investment Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…judgments that the assessee must prove identity and creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transaction e.g. as in Shankar Industries Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Nanak Chandra Laxman Das Vs. CIT (Cal) 140 ITR 151, Hari Chand Virender Paul Vs. CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148, CIT Vs. BijuPatnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674, ITO Vs. Skyjet 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 6…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ievably in such cases. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court.’ [emphasis, ours] Similar view had been, apart from its’ decisions cited above, taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court also in Harichand Virender Paul [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H); CIT v. Kishan Chand Maheshwari Dass [1980] 121 ITR 232 (P&H) and CIT v. Grewal Group of Inds. [1997] 110 ITR 278 (P&H). The matter, as would be apparent, is well settled. The same has a strong basis, both in law and in accountancy, to the latter which also reference stands made by the Apex Court. It is only because the purchase is an expen…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

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

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) CIT v. Y.M. Singla [2014] 366 ITR 242 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) The reason for the same is simple; the assessee being in receipt of a sum of money, the onus is on him to show that the same was not in the nature of income, or, even so, is outside the ambit of taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence…

The Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs. M/S Rehmat Traders, Ferozepur Cantt

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

ITA 454/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 454/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Goyal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 454/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Rehmat Traders, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur 159-P, Khalsa Gurdwara Street, Ferozepur Cantt. [PAN: AALFR 2409M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Goyal, CIT-DR Respondent by: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Date of Hearing: 12.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 01.06.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of In…

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)

…n Kumar Mahajan (in ITA No. 566/Asr/2016, dated 18.04.2018). In fact, the matter stands squarely covered by the several decisions by the Hon'ble High Courts, including that by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, as in Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) (also referred to by the special bench). In fact, even under the erstwhile rule 6DD(j) - which has undergone amendments from time to time (latest being its substitution w.e.f. AY 2009-10), it is not the genuineness of the expenditure or of the payment therefor – in which case there is no need to travel to s. 40A(3), that is relevant, but ci…

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

…Bhagwati Jewels Ltd. 201 ITR 461 (Del) xxvi. CIT vs. Prateek Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. 215 ITR 272 (Del) xxvii. Shankar Industries vs. CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal) xxviii. Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT 140 ITR 151(All) xxix. Hari Chand Virender Paul vs. CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H) xxx. CIT vs. Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) xxxi. Income Tax Officer vs. Skyjet Aviation (P) Ltd. 71 ITD 95 (Ahd) xxxii. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 465 (Cal) xxxiii. Orient Wire Industries (P) Ltd. 131 ITR 688 (Cal) xxxiv. CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal) xxxv. K.C.N. Chandrassekhar vs. ACIT 66 TTJ 355 (Bang) xx…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.1076/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Rajsadan Overseas Sales (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AADCR0755P) Circle-2, Siliguri (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 25.08.2015 Date of pronouncement: 17.09.2015 For the Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A), Siliguri in appeal No. 79/CIT(A)/Slg/10-11 dated 17.05.201…