← All Phrases

“Section 131(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 131Section 131(1)326 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 131(1) is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 131(1)

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.
95 Taxmann.com 250 · 2018 · Supreme Court
421
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is applicable only when the assessee has earned exempt income during the relevant year. If no exempt income is received, neither Section 14A nor Rule 8D for computing such disallowance can be invoked.

PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.
141 Taxmann.com 289 · 2022 · High Court
354
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not attracted when no exempt income is earned in the relevant assessment year. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, applies prospectively.

CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.
361 ITR 220 · 2014 · High Court
328
citing judgments

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 680 · 2017 · High Court
303
citing judgments

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

Judgments citing Section 131(1)

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 772/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.769, 771 & 772/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Varathsingh Jai Singh, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 128, 5Th Street, Cross Cut Road, Income Tax, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Central Circle I, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akhpj5413H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 30 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

same. On enquiry, it was found that Shri Kan Singh was employee of Shri Jai Singh. As per statement recorded under section 131(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], Shri Kan Singh deposed that as per the directions of his employer, he carried the money ... recording the proceedings under section 132A of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued summon 3 I.T.A. Nos. 769, 771 & 772/Chny/23 under section 131(1) of the Act dated 25.05.2015 and served on Shri Jai Singh and a sworn statement was recorded from him. As a result of the proceedings under

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 771/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.769, 771 & 772/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Varathsingh Jai Singh, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 128, 5Th Street, Cross Cut Road, Income Tax, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Central Circle I, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akhpj5413H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 30 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

same. On enquiry, it was found that Shri Kan Singh was employee of Shri Jai Singh. As per statement recorded under section 131(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], Shri Kan Singh deposed that as per the directions of his employer, he carried the money ... recording the proceedings under section 132A of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued summon 3 I.T.A. Nos. 769, 771 & 772/Chny/23 under section 131(1) of the Act dated 25.05.2015 and served on Shri Jai Singh and a sworn statement was recorded from him. As a result of the proceedings under

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.769, 771 & 772/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Varathsingh Jai Singh, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 128, 5Th Street, Cross Cut Road, Income Tax, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Central Circle I, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akhpj5413H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 30 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

same. On enquiry, it was found that Shri Kan Singh was employee of Shri Jai Singh. As per statement recorded under section 131(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], Shri Kan Singh deposed that as per the directions of his employer, he carried the money ... recording the proceedings under section 132A of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued summon 3 I.T.A. Nos. 769, 771 & 772/Chny/23 under section 131(1) of the Act dated 25.05.2015 and served on Shri Jai Singh and a sworn statement was recorded from him. As a result of the proceedings under