← All Phrases

“identity of creditor”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68515 judgments

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

Leading authorities on identity of creditor

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

DCIT v. Rohini Builders
256 ITR 360 · 2002 · High Court
489
citing judgments

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

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. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

An assessee introducing share capital or share premium must establish the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor or creditor; the burden does not extend to proving the 'source of source' or the financial capacity of the investor's sub-creditors.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT
264 ITR 254 · 2003 · High Court
340
citing judgments

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

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 identity of creditor

Nadeem Yusuf Sara, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6935/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)

onus to prove the cash credit is placed upon the assessee i.e. the assessee is required to prove three main ingredients viz (i) identity of creditor, (ii) creditworthiness of the creditor and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Admittedly, filing mere confirmation letter obtained from the creditor would not discharge

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

discussions in the above paras and the plethora of judicial pronouncements, I find that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, identity of creditors namely WKIL is established and in fact not disputed by the Assessing Officer. Since, there is hard evidence in form of FIRC and other

The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. R.R. Constructions, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 467/VIZ/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 30Section 32

loan creditors as appearing in the books of appellant firm were also submitted. Thus, all the three ingredients of loan creditor viz. (1) identity of creditors (2) capacity of creditors and (3) genuineness of loan transaction are proved by appellant. 5.3.2 Hence, I fail to agree with Assessing Officer that ... relevant details held that the loans were not squared up and the 8 M/s. R.R. Constructions, Vijayawada assessee has established the identity of creditors, capacity and the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the detailed and well reasoned order

ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinaylene Textile Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 3240/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3240/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito-14(3)(2), M/S. Vinaylene Textile Industries 458, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Gala No. 8, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Kuntal Modi Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Vs. Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1653 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Aarjoo Goradia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,00,000/- On A/C Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. The Companies From Which The Assessee Has Accepted Shares Application Money Of Rs.70,00,000/- Were Controlled & 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Vinaylene Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Operated By Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, Who Admitted In His Statement Recorded During The Course Of Search & Seizure Action That The Concerns/Companies Controlled By Him Were Only Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries To Various Parties Of Which The Assessee Is Also One Of The Beneficiaries. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Vary, Omit Or Substitute The Aforesaid Ground Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Aarjoo GoradiaFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram &
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 68

might have been relief upon; and (4) failure to recognize the satisfactory nature of the explanation /evidence tendered by the appellant to explain identity of creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions. Hence the impugned addition cannot be sustained. 13. Against the above order

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 40/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 39/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 38/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 37/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Nemchand J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 36/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Nemchand Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 6423/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Nemchand Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 6422/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69CSection 80D

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh L. Gala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2542/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh L. Gala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2541/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh L. Gala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2540/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Lakhamshi J Gala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2537/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Lakhamshi J Gala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2536/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Lakhamshi J Gala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2535/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Lakhamshi J Gala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2534/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Lakamshi J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2406/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction

Lakamshi J Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2405/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 41(1)(a)Section 41(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

letters, the CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee filed confirmation letters to prove the identity of creditors, therefore the AO was incorrect in making the additions only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction