← 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

Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug, Piramal Chambers Mumbai vs. Nine Dimensions Housing LLP, Bandra East, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue-Department stands dismissed

ITA 3686/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Ito 23(2)(1) Nine Dimensions Housing Llp Room No. 512 103/1St Floor, Renuka Chsl Piramal Chambers Vs. Kalanagar, Near Gurunanak Ss Rao Road, Lalbaug Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aamfn1691A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui , Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 Date Of : 16/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui , Ld. SR. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

their declared incomes. It is settled that showing having and declaring a meagre income is not only a criterion to weigh the creditworthiness of the creditors but in fact capital, reserve, surplus and financials in total, are requires to be seen, which the Ld. Commissioner has examined independently. Further

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 4(3), Kolkata vs. Privi Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1605/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata…..……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Privi Exports Pvt. Ltd….………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Office No.2, Gf, 91A/1, Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Aaicp6253B] C.O. No.67/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.1605/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Privi Exports Pvt. Ltd.….……………………. ….……….……….……Cross-Objector Office No.2, Gf, 91A/1, Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Aaicp6253B] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata...…………………....…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

purpose of section 68 of the Act. The burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. In the present case, the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai vs. Yatindra Satish Pairaikar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4852/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Pravesh AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta-CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the loans availed. In response, the assessee furnished documentary evidences to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. However, the A.O. was not convinced with the evidences furnished by the assessee. Relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing, wherein reference ... loans were also furnished before the departmental authorities. Considering the fact that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors as also the genuineness of the loan transactions through proper documentary evidences, there is no justifiable reason to treat the loan transactions

ACIT-Central Circle -4(3), Mumbai vs. Yatindra Satish Pairaikar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4846/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Pravesh AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta-CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the loans availed. In response, the assessee furnished documentary evidences to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. However, the A.O. was not convinced with the evidences furnished by the assessee. Relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing, wherein reference ... loans were also furnished before the departmental authorities. Considering the fact that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors as also the genuineness of the loan transactions through proper documentary evidences, there is no justifiable reason to treat the loan transactions

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

event the revenue still had a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transactions in issue, or as regards the creditworthiness of the creditors, it would have had to discharge the onus which had shifted on to it. A bald assertion by the Assessing Officer that the credits were

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Om Trilok Realty & Infrastructure, Mumbai

ITA 4048/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shree Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Deputy Commissioner M/S Om Trilok Realty & Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Infrastructures, Shop No. 6Th Room No. 655, 8, Botawala Building, V Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 82086, Raghavji Road, S M. K. Road, Mumbai- Gowalia Tank, 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai-400036 Pan No. Aabfo8779M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta : Shri R A Dhyani, Cit-Dr Respondent By : 17.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 10.12.2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: 17.09.2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessment 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 ... However, the onus of the assessee is limited to the extent of proving the source from which he received the cash credit. The creditworthiness of the creditor has to be judged vis-à-vis the transaction which had taken place between the assessee and the creditor

Prestigious Enterprises Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CC-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9271/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2007-08] Prestigious Enterprises P. Ltd. Acit, Cc-18, New Delhi (Formerly Known As Aeren R Enterprises P. Ltd. & A R Developers Vs Merged With Aeren R Enterprises P. Ltd.) 618, 6Th Floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Pan- Aadcs-7613-K Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

this claim is accepted, the evidences have to be examined on merits. It is an established legal position that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction have to be proved with cogent evidences. I find that the purpose of advance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Phpl Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1714/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 3Section 68

under section 68 of the Act despite the assessee falling to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. M/S Maxxon Vanijya & Resources Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 89/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250

proviso to section 68 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein the onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO has entirely shifted to the assessee. In this regard the relevant proviso as inserted is reproduced hereunder. [Provided that

Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), Rudrapur vs. Swarnim Promoters & Developers, Rudrapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer-2(1)(4), Swarnim Promotoers & Rudrapur. Developers, Vs. Mandi Parisar Kichha Road, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. Pan: Abqfs9375M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, Ca & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 06.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 17.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,89,400/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Has Computed The Total Income At Rs.1,27,38,630/- Vide Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 02.06.2011 By Making The Following Additions/Disallowances:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

after considering the facts of the case has observed that assessee has substantiate the genuineness of the loans and the creditworthiness of the creditors by filing through confirmations and the copy of the ITRs and in respect of various loans taken, bank statements were also filed

Nandkishore Telefilms & Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2563/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

also argued that assessee has discharged his onus u/s 68 by proving the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors and the AO has failed to bring anything on record to contradict the factual material and evidence brought on record by the assessee

Orange City Recreation Resort Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5698/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 250Section 68Section 69C

creditor, (ii) creditworthiness, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. While identity may not be in dispute, the assessee has failed to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors, who were found to have meagre income and negligible business activity. Further, the findings of the Investigation Wing clearly indicate that the loans

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Manoj Kumar Bansal, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Manoj Kumar Bansal, 401 Income Tax Room No. New Delhi House, 27 Barakhamba 261-A 2Nd Floor F-2 Ara Road Delhi 110001 Centre, New Delhi- 110055 Pan No.Aahpb3143F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

loan from the M/s Nandish enterprises in the instant case and the assessee has successfully demonstrated the factum of identity, capacity and creditworthiness of the creditor who gave the loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the assessee. The unsecured loan was repaid by the assessee by banking channel

Atul Jindal, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. DCIT Circle-6 Ldh Current Jao ITO, Ward-1(5), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 377/CHANDI/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: This Tribunal. 3. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Import & Trading Of Copper-Based Products Through His Proprietorship Concern, Usha Impex. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 29.09.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,83,680/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

showed contemporaneous deposits prior to issuing the advance to the assessee. According to the Ld. DR, such credit pattern raises doubts about the creditworthiness of the creditor. 6.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that the absence of any eventual sale of goods between the parties and the delay in repayment ... eventually took place, we find such reasoning to be legally misplaced. Section 68 concerns itself strictly with three parameters—identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction. It does not stipulate that the loan or advance must culminate in a successful business transaction. The assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 797/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward 1(3) Shree Balaji Processors बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Tajpur Road, Opp. Central Jail Vs. Ludhiana - 141010 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actfs-8428-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 23-12-2018 Rejecting Books Of The Assessee & Assessing Business Profit Of Rs.12.81 Crores. The Ld. Cit(A) Reversed The Action Of Ld. Ao Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us With Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. That The Cit(A), Ludhiana Has Erred In Law, In Deleting Addition Of Rs.12,01,85,191/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

computation of income and the relevant extracts of the bank statements of the lenders which depicts the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The AO has not found any defect in the said documents and neither the AO has questioned the creditworthiness

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 857/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.857/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune. Vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Utkarsha, Plot No.14, Yogi Arbindo Society, Sahakar Nagar-2, Pune- 411009. Pan : Aalcs1473M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manish Kumar Sinha Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,43,35,511/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Sinha
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction, thereby ignoring the inconsistency in the stand taken by the assessee before the Investigation authorities and before the Assessing Officer with regard ... ought to have dealt with this inconsistency rather than assuming that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) failed to take note

Vsn and Jeevan Infra Developers, Peruru Panchayat, Tirupathi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Tirupathi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vsn & Jeevan Infra Vs. Dy.Cit Developers, Peruru Central Circle Panchayat, Tirupati Tirupati Pan:Aaifv3414B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vsn & Jeevan Infra Developers (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.02.2017 For The A.Y 2009- 10. Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 68

reproduced the remand report submitted by the Ld. AO. The remand report clearly records that the identity as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction is established. The Ld. AR further submitted that despite this favourable finding in the remand report ... report of the Ld. AO unequivocally states that the identity and report of the Ld. Ld. AO unequivocally states that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor is established and the genuineness of the loan transaction is accepted. Thus, in our considered view, the statutory requirements under section

Anirudh Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(7), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

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

Tikamchand Sahu, Ainthapali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.494/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2022-23 Tikamchand Sahu, Ainthapali Imfl Off Shop, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768004 Pan: Hejps3794R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

letter, certificate of incorporation (in case of companies), and other relevant KYC documents. In the absence of these documents, identity remains unverified. 2. Creditworthiness of the Creditor A bank statement shows movement of funds but does not prove that the lender has the financial capacity to give the loan. Creditworthiness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata vs. Sincere Commodities and Derivatives Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1256/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Commodities And Derivatives Markets Pvt. Ltd during the relevant FY: 2012-13. The appellant has, therefore, discharged its onus to explain the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transactions by filing requisite documents before the AO. The contentions of the appellant, therefore, are not under dispute