← 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

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2725/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

shoulders under section 68 of the Act by submitting all the documents in order to prove the identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer did not find any defect or deficiency in the documents so filed by the assessee. The Assessing

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2724/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

shoulders under section 68 of the Act by submitting all the documents in order to prove the identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer did not find any defect or deficiency in the documents so filed by the assessee. The Assessing

M/S Gopikar Supply Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 504/KOL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 504/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Gopikar Supply Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Vs Kolkata Commerce House 2Nd Floor, Room No. 5 Kolkata - 700015 [Pan: Aabcg1344F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -14, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/06/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. When The Appeal Was Called Out, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Even, There Is No Application Filed By The Assessee Seeking Adjournment. Perusal Of Record Reveals That Beginning From 29/08/2022, The Appeal Has Been Listed For Hearing On Six Occasions After Which, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Withdrew His Power Of Attorney. Thereafter, Multiple Notices For Hearing Sent Through Registered Post, E-Mail & Phone To The Assessee In The Details Given In 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 68

respond to multiple statutory notices issued by the Assessing. No conclusive evidence was furnished by the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the share application money of Rs.20,66,00,000/-. Even, the assessee failed to furnish any confirmation from the share subscribers

Narendra Mahendra Kothari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1006/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 54Section 68Section 80C

creditor is one of the pointer to creditworthiness of a person. Since, the assessee failed to file necessary evidences to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the AO to reject source for cash deposits claimed to have

M/S. Lifeline Medicare Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 74/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

borrowed the funds from other parties and same are invested in the assessee company. The assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors who have provided money to the director of the company for the purpose of investment in the assessee company. He referred ... deleting the addition of ₹ 1,981,059,501 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. He submitted that the amount is received by the assessee from Nissidh Vision private limited, initial provision private limited income received the above amount

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Next Avenue Ventures Private Limited(Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2420/MUM/2023[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Next Avenue Ventures Ward- 12(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020 (Earlier Known As Kbj Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Raheja Chambers, Link Road Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagck8343R

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

borrowed the funds from other parties and same are invested in the assessee company. The assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors who have provided money to the director of the company for the purpose of investment in the assessee company. He referred ... deleting the addition of ₹ 1,981,059,501 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. He submitted that the amount is received by the assessee from Nissidh Vision private limited, initial provision private limited income received the above amount

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 43/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(1), M/S. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 64, Bentinck Street 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aacce0887C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Asim Panda, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 7, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

personal attendance was made by any director of the share allottee companies during the course of assessment proceedings and as such identity & creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transactions could not be verified. 3. That on the facts, the principles which has been laid down ... Kolkata vs NRA iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) also suggests that the Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor /subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribes, and ascertain whether the transaction is genuine, or these are bogus entries of name lenders

Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 898/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AParithivel, D.R
Section 142Section 234Section 250Section 68

statistical purposes.” 2.1 On remittance to the ld. AO, the AO asked various details in order to elicit the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. However, assessee did not reply to any of the questions asked vide notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.9.2021. Later, vide

Babu Hira Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3312/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Bhanushali, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

taken in order to acquire the property. The AO called on the assessee to furnish details with regard to the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors from whom the loans were taken. The assessee submitted various details of 26 creditors from whom the assessee has taken loans totaling ... other hand submitted that the assessee failed to produce any additional documents before the CIT(A) to substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and has also not replied to the questionnaire of the CIT(A). Accordingly the ld DR submitted that the CIT(A) has correctly sustained

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

received as a loan from the creditor. The documents produced by the assessee shall not only proving identity of the parties but also creditworthiness of the creditor who should have the financial capacity to make the advance in question, to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 68

lies on the assessee to adduce necessary documentary evidence so as to prove all the three ingredients of section 68 viz. identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction, as the relevant facts are within the special knowledge of the assessee. It has also been held that ... prove that the amount in question is properly explained for the purpose of section 68. Assessee has to establish identity and creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the transaction. All the three ingredients are cumulative and not exclusive. ' (vi) In matters regarding cash credit the onus

Heena Textile Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 4(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3326/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3326/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Heena Textile Ltd बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(3) Office No. 301, B-65, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Standford Plaza, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Opp Citi Mall, Nr. Morya House, Mumbai- 400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch0454N (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.07.2023 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance Of Expense To The Tune Of Rs.12,30,870/- Which According To The Assessee Was Incurred During The Normal Course Of Business. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.2,73,97,900/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (DR)
Section 144Section 37Section 68Section 69

confirmed the addition since assessee failed to prima facie prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditors. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition of Rs.2,73,97,900/- and disallowance of Rs.12,30,870/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 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

M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 92C

received as a loan from the creditor. The documents produced by the assessee shall not only proving identity of the parties but also creditworthiness of the creditor who should have the financial capacity to make the advance in question, to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge

Spiritual Impressions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7074/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde a/w Shri KumarFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the appellant must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. 5.3.6 In this case the appellant was required to explain the loans received and prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender party

ACIT, Centrl Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Anu Bajaj, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1943/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Anu Bajaj, Central Circle, House No. 21, Ghaziabad Sector-5, Raj Kumar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpb5893G Co No. 83/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 1943/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Anu Bajaj, Vs. Acit, House No. 21, Central Circle, Sector-5, Raj Kumar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpb5893G Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

appellant submits that sufficient opportunity was not provided to furnish all the details to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. In the appellate proceedings, CO No. 83/Del/2023 Anu Bajaj appellant filed detailed submission along with documentary evidences and the same were sent

M/S Arham Packaging Goods Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 250Section 68

speaking order and in a mechanical manner. The assessee had duly furnished all the details relating to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. Further, the Assessing Officer, however, without examination any of the documents, did not point out any defect, discrepancy or infirmity

Creative Realmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

ITA 599/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक

Narmada Concast Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 33/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148

Assessment Year 2013-14 whereas loan given to the assessee was Rs.50,00,000/- through banking channel. Thus the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of loan transaction as envisaged u/s. 68 of the Act. Similarly, the assessee has not filed the original return within