← 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)

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

initiated proceedings under section 153C in assessee's case. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO recorded statement under oath under section 131(1) of the Act where Shri Sunil Gaikwad was cross examined with regard to his answers during the statement recorded under section 132(4). The following

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1511/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

initiated proceedings under section 153C in assessee's case. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO recorded statement under oath under section 131(1) of the Act where Shri Sunil Gaikwad was cross examined with regard to his answers during the statement recorded under section 132(4). The following

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1510/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

initiated proceedings under section 153C in assessee's case. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO recorded statement under oath under section 131(1) of the Act where Shri Sunil Gaikwad was cross examined with regard to his answers during the statement recorded under section 132(4). The following

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1509/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

initiated proceedings under section 153C in assessee's case. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO recorded statement under oath under section 131(1) of the Act where Shri Sunil Gaikwad was cross examined with regard to his answers during the statement recorded under section 132(4). The following

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

also noted from local enquiries at the site in question, that Sh. Ram Adhar had expired in October, 2018. Summons under section 131(1) were thereafter issued to his elder son and legal heir, Sh. Arun Kumar Rawat. While Sh. Arun Kumar Rawat confirmed the death of his father

Mohammed Abdul Najeeb, Gulbarga, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

ITA 1175/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA
Section 127Section 131(1)(d)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

incriminating materials does not constitute incriminating material so as to justify and enable the reference to valuation cell through formation of commission under Section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the provisions of Section 142A. The only reasonable and logical inference is that the assessing

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 883/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

Wing, Thane, in respect of certain companies alleged to be Kolkata-based entities. The said report recorded that, in some instances, summons under section 131(1)(d) of the Act had been issued and replies were received, while in other cases there was no compliance. The Investigation Wing, however, opined

Vasupujya Filaments, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 876/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

Wing, Thane, in respect of certain companies alleged to be Kolkata-based entities. The said report recorded that, in some instances, summons under section 131(1)(d) of the Act had been issued and replies were received, while in other cases there was no compliance. The Investigation Wing, however, opined

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 528/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

does not have the power to refer a matter to the Valuation Cell under section 55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the DVO’s report, which, in view

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 527/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

does not have the power to refer a matter to the Valuation Cell under section 55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the DVO’s report, which, in view

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 526/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

does not have the power to refer a matter to the Valuation Cell under section 55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs.1,43,094 based on the DVO's report, which, in view

Ashok Dhanraj Chordia, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-1, Pune

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

ITA 977/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

recorded on 04/08/2017 / 02/08/2017 under section 132(4) of the Act is not available now in the records, instead the statement recorded under section 131(1) of the Act on 17/11/2017 is available. Thus, it seems that some of the documents / information which was shared with the earlier Assessing Officer

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbasant Jain, Vs. Dcit, C-119, Shivaji Park, Central Circle-29, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adbpj2416P

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Asiatic Industries, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 26(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 743/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr.DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन

Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 118/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 117/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. New India City Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4804/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Soundra Rajan Aruna Divya, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 3215/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Section 115Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Court in the case of Dr Vijya Pahwa v SCIT in [1996] 84 Taxman 416 has observed 2....... Summons can be served under section 131(1) only in case of obstruction by the person concerned or when some sort of hindrance is put up by him. In the instant case