← All Phrases

“creditworthiness of the creditor”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68914 judgments

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

Leading authorities on creditworthiness of the 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.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

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.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

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

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

Judgments citing creditworthiness of the creditor

Redlily Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2236/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2236/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Redlily Enterprises Pvt. Limited,…..………Appellant 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 167, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcr2177D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...……...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

details filed by the assessee and passed orders. He further submitted that in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors, the assessee filed a paper book before the Tribunal and pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities and remit ... opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. He pleaded to confirm the orders passed by the Revenue

Venkata Narasimharao Muppala, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 287/VIZ/2023[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 69A

except filing confirmation from Mr D Satish, no other evidences including his ITR was filed for the relevant assessment year to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, we are the considered view, that assessee is unable to explain the loan cliamed to have been received from Mr D Sathish

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

regarding alleged shell companies and accommodation entries does not satisfy the requirements of Section 68. It is well-settled that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions must be evaluated in the context of the evidence provided by the assessee. The AO has failed

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Meridian Chem Bond Private Liimited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the Cross

ITA 1813/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

Private Limited 3.2.4 As seen from the above, the appellant has furnished all the details proving conclusively the three ingredients of identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction. The amounts were paid by the creditors from their running bank accounts which were accounted

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Meridian Chem Bond Private Liimited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the Cross

ITA 1769/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

Private Limited 3.2.4 As seen from the above, the appellant has furnished all the details proving conclusively the three ingredients of identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction. The amounts were paid by the creditors from their running bank accounts which were accounted

Om Prakash Tantia, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 4737/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

appellant has proved identity of the creditor which is not disputed by Assessing Officer in assessment order. (ii) The appellant has also proved creditworthiness of the creditor by submitting its audited annual account along with relevant bank statement of depositors. The Assessing Officer has not proved that any cash

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Hridey Vikram Bhatia, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3173/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

order to prove that the transaction is not hit by section 68, the appellant has to establish, first the identity, second the creditworthiness of the creditor and third the genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established, prima facie, that the onus shifts on the department ... books as loan on various dates. For the above three things emerge: First the identity: The same has been established. Second the creditworthiness of the creditor: the same has also been established beyond doubt as the payee is an income tax assessee his balance sheet has been tax audited

Spectra Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 68

paid by the customers. In other words, the credit entries are not loan credits for which the assessee has to explain the creditworthiness of the creditors. We are of the considered view that once the AO has accepted the sales, taking a part of it for making addition ... genuineness of the creditors cannot be doubted as the impugned sales have been accepted by the AO and insofar as creditworthiness of the creditors are concerned, the AO cannot expect the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the purchasers of the vehicles. 5. Considering the facts of the case

M/S. Shanti Creators (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Patna

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

ITA 167/PAT/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 164/Pat/2013 Assessment Year: 1993-1994 & I.T.A. No. 165/Pat/2013 Assessment Year: 1994-1995 &

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 245H

service of several notices, the assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal to explain the source of investment and also to explain the creditworthiness of the creditors for unsecured loans. Apart from that before the lower authorities also, the assessee was not in a position to establish its claim. Therefore ... appeals. We have gone through the assessment order and appellate order, since the assessee failed to establish the source of investment and creditworthiness of the creditor, the revenue authorities have categorically given findings on the additions made by them. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed

M/S. Shanti Creators (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Patna

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

ITA 165/PAT/2013[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 164/Pat/2013 Assessment Year: 1993-1994 & I.T.A. No. 165/Pat/2013 Assessment Year: 1994-1995 &

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 245H

service of several notices, the assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal to explain the source of investment and also to explain the creditworthiness of the creditors for unsecured loans. Apart from that before the lower authorities also, the assessee was not in a position to establish its claim. Therefore ... appeals. We have gone through the assessment order and appellate order, since the assessee failed to establish the source of investment and creditworthiness of the creditor, the revenue authorities have categorically given findings on the additions made by them. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed

M/S. Shanti Creators (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Patna

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

ITA 164/PAT/2013[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 164/Pat/2013 Assessment Year: 1993-1994 & I.T.A. No. 165/Pat/2013 Assessment Year: 1994-1995 &

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 245H

service of several notices, the assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal to explain the source of investment and also to explain the creditworthiness of the creditors for unsecured loans. Apart from that before the lower authorities also, the assessee was not in a position to establish its claim. Therefore ... appeals. We have gone through the assessment order and appellate order, since the assessee failed to establish the source of investment and creditworthiness of the creditor, the revenue authorities have categorically given findings on the additions made by them. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

above discussions, it is crystal clear that the assessee has failed to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, the assessee had failed to discharge his onus under section 68 of the Act; hence, the order of the Assessing Officer

Pooja Equiresearch Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5941/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5941/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(2), B-101, Hari Darshan Bhogilal Mumbai Phadia Road, Kandivali (West) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacp 6499 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya & MsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

establishing the identity of the creditors by submitting loan confirmation, copy of the acknowledgement of the ITRs etc., however, still doubted the creditworthiness of the creditors on the various factors and thus ultimately held the amount of Rs.1,26,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and consequently added the same ... assessee must have the following three ingredients for proving the cash credits in the books of accounts: (i) Identity of the creditors (ii) Creditworthiness of the creditor i.e capacity of the creditor to advance the money (iii) Genuineness of the transactions. The assessee is able to establish the identity

ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Phoenix Infraventures and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 867/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 68

also needs to prove the source of source of the investor company. Once the assessee proves the identity, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the creditor, then the onus shifts to the AO to prove otherwise. 11. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee has received advance from AGEVIPL

Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor, the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined ... said amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed source. In other words, the genuineness as well as the creditworthiness of a creditor have to be adjudged vis-a-vis the transactions, which he has with the assessee. The reason why we have formed the opinion that

Ritudhara Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1103/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Ritudhara Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 5/1, Clive Row, 4 Th Floor, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcr7607A Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 6

returned un- served or no body complied with them is of little significance to prove the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: “We find considerable force of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad vs. Aarthik Greentech Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Greentech Income Tax Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aalca6887D] आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.33/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Infra Projects Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aahca0719N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although

Umang Boards (Mumbai), Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5758/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No.5758/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

aside proceedings. The appellant, referred the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT and submitted that, they were asked to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and that has been discharged by them. It is also submitted that, they have submitted details of PAN, copy of IT Returns, Bank

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Zainab Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 70/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी. सं/Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad (Appellant) Vs. M/S Zainab Investments Pvt. Ltd. Secunderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad (Appellant) Vs. M/S Zainab Investments Pvt. Ltd. Secunderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Pvt. Ltd. Secunderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement: 2

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing

Assiatant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Zainab Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

ITA 69/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing ... ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts is that once, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the creditor is proved, then the sum received from the creditor cannot be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Although the Assessing