How many judgments cite Tolaram Daga v. CIT?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite Tolaram Daga v. CIT (59 ITR 632), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Tolaram Daga v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 148, Section 234B.

Tolaram Daga v. CIT

59 ITR 632High Court1966#1937 most cited

What is Tolaram Daga v. CIT authority for?

An assessee claiming cash credits or loans has the primary burden to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The judgment also addresses the validity of rejecting books of accounts during assessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tolaram Daga v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained loans · burden of proof · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · rejection of books of account · Section 133(6) · identity of creditor

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 148 Section 234B Section 12AA Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 106 source of source section 5(2)share capital and share premium creditworthiness of the creditor section 250(4)share application money section 34 addition under section 68 rule 46a admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Tolaram Daga v. CIT

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…l v. ITO iii. [1997] 224 ITR 180 (P&H) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel iv. [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan) CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal v. [2013] 214 Taxman 440 (Allahabad) Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT vi. 103 ITR 344 at 349-350 ( Patna) Saraogi Credit Corporation v CIT vii. 59 ITR 632 at 636 (Assam) TolaRam Daga v cIT viii. 49 ITR 273 at 279 (Mad) S. Hastimal v CIT ix. 151 ITR 150 at 156-157 (Pat) Addl. CIT, Bihar v Hanuman Aggarwal x. 154 ITR 244 at 247 (Pat) Addl CIT v Bahri Bros. (P) Lt xi. 264 ITR 254 at 261-266 (Gau) Nemichand Kothari v. CIT xii. 280 ITR 512 at 518 (Guj) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT xiii. [2008] 219 CTR (R…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…ource is not explained. Law is very clear that assessee is not required to prove the 'source of source' of cash credits. This proposition is well supported by the following judicial pronouncements – • S. Hastimal V. CIT 49 ITR 273 (Mad) • Tolaram Daga Vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) • CIT Vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 • Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guj) • DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Nevertheless taking abundant precaution, during appellate proceedings, learned AR of the assessee was asked to submit the evidences to explain the "source of…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6123/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

…explanation and convert good proof into no proof. CIT vs K.S. Kannan Kunhi87 ITR 3958. 8. Credit in the name of close relative, the assessee cannot be presumed to have knowledge of the source from which depositor has obtained money. Tola Ram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) and CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mal 87 ITR 349 9. CIT vs Pithampur Conzima (P) Ud.(2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court Where in appeal before Tribunal, the assessee showed that the credit given to the assessee company were duly declared by the creditors in their respective returns, whereupon the Tribunal concluded that the investment in t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6122/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

Venu Myneni, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya, DR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…ntion of assessee was that there were deposits of travel cheques into the bank account for which the source was income earned outside India and relied on the following decisions: a) S. Hastimal Vs CIT (1963) [49 ITR 273] (Mad); b) Tolaram Daga Vs CIT (1966) [59 ITR 632] (Assam.); c) CIT Vs Daulat Ram Ramatmull, (1973) [87 ITR 349] (SC); d) Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (1976) [103, ITR 344] (Pat); e) Rohini Builders (2002) [256 ITR 360] (Guj); f) Nemichand Kothari Vs CIT (2003) [264 ITR 254]; g) CIT Vs HS Builders Pvt Ltd (2012) [254 CTR (Raj) 542]; 3. Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to submit a remand report on t…

ACIT, Meerut vs. Shri. Sunil Khan, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5628/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

Section 131Section 68

…tters sent to the creditors came back unserved, the addition of entire liability shown in the balance- sheet as creditors cannot be held to be justified. AR’s arguments also find support from the ratios of judgments in the case of Tola Ram Daga vs. CIT (1996),59 ITR 632 (Assam) and ITO vs. Hylam Securities & Finance (P) Ltd., 178 ITR 317 (2009), Gujarat. The addition is deleted. (Relief Rs. 34,09,408) (emphasis provided) I find on a reading of the facts in the light of the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR that the 4.1. AO in the facts and circumstances of the present case has not even cared to upset any of the findings…

Satluj Shiksha Samiti, Haryana vs. ACIT, Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 777/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. V.M. Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…g upon the assessee to prove the source of source case laws relied upon are as under :- . • Orissa Corporation (P)ltd 159 ITR 78(SC) • P.K. Noorjahan 273 ITR 570(SC) • Nabadwip Chandra Roy v/s CIT (1962) 44 ITR 591 (Assam). • Tolaram Daga v/s CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam). • Anand Prakash Agarwal vIs ACIT ( 2008) 6 DTR (All) (Trib) 191. • Radheshyam vIs Safiyabai Ibrahim AIR 1988 Born 361 • Rohini Builders 182 CTR 373 (Guj) 5. The list of 177 persons PB Pg 88-94/1-350 by whom the loan were provided during the assessment proceedings with detailed confirmation with name of persons, father's name, addr…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 68

…R 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders f) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. j) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Tolaram Daga vs. CIT k) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 6.1 As regards addition of Rs. 5,49,000/- representing loans received by the assessee and, held to be unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Ld. A.R. of the assessee stated that these are the unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 5,49,000/- had been receiv…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…Courts that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source or the origin of origin. Reference may be made to the decisions in S. Hastimal vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273(Mad); Tola Ram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4 AY: 2006-07 (Cal.)]. (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.); CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); Sarogi Credit Corpn. Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat); CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd.(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) & Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). In this regard, it is important to take note of the judgment in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram (Supra) holding that the burde…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla

Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…the money which he has advanced to assessee, no addition can be made and for this purpose reliance was placed on the following decisions :- Daulatram Rawatmull v/s CIT 87 ITR 349 (S.C.) Sarogi Credit Corporation v/s CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat) Tolaram Daga v/s CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ITO v/s. Suresh Kalmadi ITA No.764 (Pune) 1985 - Page 955 BCA January 89 Held the assessee is under no obligation to show source of the source for loans. It is immaterial & even if creditors have shown exact amount of received on the date of advancement of loan & if after repayment exact cash is drawn. No other & no addition can be done. C…

Chandrika Tapuriah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8298/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…have already found the provision to be applicable even in the case of the transferee in- as-much as the presumption would be of the funds having been received (or entitled to be received) on own account. The decision in the case of Tolaram Daga vs. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam), relied upon by the assessee, has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of that case, the credit brought to tax u/s.68 was to the account of the assessee’s wife, in the books of a firm in which the assessee was a partner. It was under these circumstances; the wife admitting to the deposit, that it was held…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3376/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…available with the creditor. I have also considered the case laws like CIT vs. Taj Borewells, (2007) 291 ITR 232 (Mad), CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd., (2009) 21 DTR (Del) 9, Jaikishan Dadlani vs. ITO, (2005) 4 SOT 138 (Mum) and Tolaram Daga vs. CIT, (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) wherein it has been held that source of source cannot be examined by the AO. If the AO has any doubt about the source of cash deposit (Rs. 2,00,000/--) in the account of the creditor, it can be considered in the hands of the creditor only and not in the hands of the appellant. The AO has mentioned in the remand report that the assessee ha…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3375/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3377/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, Central Circle-13, New Delhi A-1/36, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (Pan:Afypp9110K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ndisclosed sources-Cash credit-Genuineness-While examining applicability of s. 68, source of source cannot be investigated-Factum of borrowing and identity of creditor not being in doubt, no addition could be made under s. 68" iv) Tolaram oaga vs. CIT, (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) "Income from undisclosed sources-Burden of proof-Cash credit found in the books of firm in which assessee is a partner in the name of assessee's wife-Wife claiming the money as belonging to her and as having been deposited by her- Genuineness and regularity of the accounts not challenged-uls 34, Evidence Act, the accounts are prima facie p…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sonali Punj, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3717/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

…f the assessee, where existence of depositors of such credits is established and such deposits/advance/loan is owned by such existing person. On such proof the assessee's onus is discharged", 8. Similarly, Hon'ble Assam High Court in the case of Tola Ram Oaga 59 ITR 632 held that the assessee cannot be attributed the knowledge of source of the amount u/s 106 of the Evidence Act merely because he happens to be the husband of the depositor. Similarly in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau), it was held that it was not the burden of the assessee to show the source of his creditor or to prove the creditwo…

CIT vs. Lokesh Garments Pvt Ltd

ITA - 479 / 2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012

Section 131Section 142Section 1aSection 44A

…icient material. Rejection of books of account should not be done light heartedly as held by the Kerala High Court in the case of St. Teresa's Oil Mills, v. State of Kerala 11970176 ITR 365 and by the Assam High Court in the case of Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632. Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable and incorrect. The AO has to prove satisfactorily that the books of accounts are unreliable or incorrect or incomplete before he can reject the accounts and this can be done by sho…

CIT vs. Lokesh Garments Pvt Ltd

ITA - 478 / 2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012

Section 131Section 142Section 1aSection 44A

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Charminar Breweries Ltd

ITTA/478/2011HC Telangana27 Jan 2012