← All Phrases

“genuineness of the transaction”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 685,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for genuineness of the transaction is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on genuineness of the transaction

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

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.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO
154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court
741
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

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.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Judgments citing genuineness of the transaction

Sangeeta Yadav, K V Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1506/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed.

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

loan creditor to explain the loan given to the assessee. Since the assessee has established the identity of the loan creditor, proved the genuineness of the transaction, and also the creditworthiness of the loan creditor, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. under Section

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Archeesh Health Care Private Limited, K V Ranga Reddy

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

ITA 124/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 35DSection 37

considering relevant evidences filed by the assessee and also remand report submitted by the A.O. where the A.O. has accepted the genuineness of the transactions of the assessee and shareholders in light of various evidences except in the case of Shri Arun Natarajan where the A.O. has doubted the genuineness ... share capital received by the assessee after verification of relevant evidences. Insofar as Shri Arun Natarajan although the A.O. has not accepted the genuineness of the transactions, but the Ld. CIT(A) had given categorical finding in light of relevant evidences that, the assessee has discharged the onus by filing

Kajal Kumari Seth, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Kajal Kumari Seth………………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant 1/H/5, Raja Manindra Road, Kol-37.. [Pan: Cstps9220D] Vs. Ito, Ward-45(2), Kolkata….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. J. Bhide, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee'S Firm 2. Was Engaged In Manufacturing & Trading Mustard Oils & Mustard Seeds Etc. & The Assessee Had Filed Income Tax Return For A.Y. 2014- 15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,41,700/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under The Faceless Assessment Scheme & During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Had Unaccounted Income Of Rs.1,50,44,516/- From Sundry Creditors. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated Kajal Kumari Seth 28.08.2015 Was Issued Along With Various Other Notices & The Assessee Failed To Give Satisfactory Reply To The Assessing Officer & Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Passing Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act By Assessing Total Income At Rs.1,52,86,216/- Making An Addition Of Rs.1,50,44,516/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

comment on the identity of the creditors. We also find that the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction by submitting sufficient documentary 4 Kajal Kumari Seth evidences before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the fact that the assessee did not make

M/S Omega Investments & Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5914/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrim/S. Omega Investments & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Properties Ltd. Income Tax 34-B, 3Rd Floor, Jolly Maker Circle 3(2)(2), Aayakar Chambers Ii, Nariman Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Point, Mumbai-400021. Rd, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaco0978L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan- Sr
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 80I

Rs.13,41,157/- did not have the capacity to advance the impugned loan and therefore, neither the credit worthiness of the lender nor genuineness of the transaction has not been established. 5.4 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the document placed before us. It is seen that ... rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. We are of the considered view that the initial onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction has been discharged by the assessee. Further, a part of the impugned amount of Rs. 1,62,50,000/- has also been offered

Black Berry Realcon Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5795/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis that the assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and did not take into account the evidences of the assessee which were on record. The ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted and it appears

Abuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2712/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaabuchi Infra Ventures Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (3), Kh No.115, Village Alipur, Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Aacb5801K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Harshit Srivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 01.08.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 07.11.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,27,520/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass & Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Srivastav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

their ledger accounts as appearing in its books of account along with confirmation letters from the investee company concern etc. to prove the genuineness of the transaction. With the above observation, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds

Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Said Appeal Is Pending Before Learned Cit(A), As Claimed By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 263Section 68

found applicable in assessee's case as the facts of the case are different. The onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction Further as per Form 3CB-3CD, it is noted that the assessee has made huge business transaction with sister concern. It is noted ... assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that same were distinguishable because of difference in facts. He further observed that in order to prove genuineness of the transaction onus was on the assessee. 13. From Form 3CB -3CD, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made huge business transactions with

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR
Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

Ld.CIT(A) has not erredtoallowtheappealoftheassesseeanddeletetheadditionof Rs. 1,79,75,000/- made u/s 68of the Act as the assessee clearly failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the lenders. 9. ItisprayedthattheorderoftheId.CIT(A)beset-asideandthatoftheA.O.berestored. 1.2 The assessee has filed petition u/r 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 wherein ... addresses etc. No formal agreement of sale was executed by RPIPL. The assessee thus could not discharge the onus to establish the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the lender. M/s RPIPL returned loss of Rs.2.84 Lacs during this year. Accordingly, the advance of Rs.5.28 Crores was treated

Texo the Builders, Udupi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 1200/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the Act and disallowed the amount. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness of the transactions and business expediency. However, disallowance was carried out purely on the violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act as stated above ... business timings. Hence, the disallowance on the mere ground that the payments were made on Saturday should not be accepted when the genuineness of such transactions was never doubted. 2.8. Further the appellant has incurred expenses towards payment for labourers. This payment is again incurred on the construction labourers

Texo the Builders, Udupi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 1199/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the Act and disallowed the amount. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness of the transactions and business expediency. However, disallowance was carried out purely on the violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act as stated above ... business timings. Hence, the disallowance on the mere ground that the payments were made on Saturday should not be accepted when the genuineness of such transactions was never doubted. 2.8. Further the appellant has incurred expenses towards payment for labourers. This payment is again incurred on the construction labourers

Klene Paks Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1772/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. The transactions were carried out through banking channel as demonstrated in the ledger account. Hence, the genuineness has also been established. The genuineness of the transaction further establishes by the fact that the impugned parties have confirmed the same by furnishing response to the notices issued under section ... carried out through proper banking channels. The assessee has also paid interest on these loans and deducted TDS wherever applicable, which proves the genuineness of the transactions. 11.1 The ld. AR further submitted that three of the creditors had already filed these details before the DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata, and their

Klene Paks Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1771/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

assessee. The transactions were carried out through banking channel as demonstrated in the ledger account. Hence, the genuineness has also been established. The genuineness of the transaction further establishes by the fact that the impugned parties have confirmed the same by furnishing response to the notices issued under section ... carried out through proper banking channels. The assessee has also paid interest on these loans and deducted TDS wherever applicable, which proves the genuineness of the transactions. 11.1 The ld. AR further submitted that three of the creditors had already filed these details before the DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata, and their

Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Private Limited, Maredubaka vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kakinada

In the result, we herein, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the CIT(A) order and vacate the addition of Rs

ITA 546/VIZ/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Maredubaka, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aaics2638B (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 12/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

however, did not find favour with the explanation of the assessee company and held a conviction that it had failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction by placing on record confirmation from M/s Prithvi Traders or the commission agent. The AO, therefore, concluded that the impugned amount ... assessee company had failed to discharge the onus that was cast upon it under Section 68 to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 7. The assessee company aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

established the nature and scope of the transaction providing the documentary evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the entity and the genuineness of the transaction. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition based on the information received from the search conducted at the third party ... documentary evidences with regard to the said transactions were made available to the revenue authorities to establish identity, creditworthiness of the AFL and genuineness of the transactions regarding loan transaction of Rs.25 lakhs. 4. Apart from this it was submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind vs. Vikas Jain, Jind

In the result, the assessee succeeds in its cross-objection

ITA 838/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.838/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Shri Vikas Jain बनाम/ Ward 1 Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Vs. Jind-126102. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co No. 28/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.838/Chandi/2024) Shri Vikas Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Ward 1 Vs. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (Cross Objector) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69C

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,67,89,408/- because the initial burden was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions with necessary documentary evidences, which the assessee had failed to discharge. The assessee merely tried to hide behind the fact that he has recorded these ... assessee. It was observed that all transactions were carried out through banking channels which was one of the evident proofs for genuineness of the transactions. The assessee had filed substantial evidences with regard to purchase made from M/s JSB during the course of assessment proceedings which could not be denied

Aryan Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Aryan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-2(1), Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shantipally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagca2975B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

channel too. Considering these facts, we are of the view that the assessee has proved identity, creditworthiness of the investor as well as genuineness of the transactions. Considering these facts, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition of ₹13,00,000/- also. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Total Loan Total 5,24,50,000/- 7.3 It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee duly proved the genuineness of the transaction that the advancement of loan and the repayment of the loan has been carried out through proper banking channel and the loan creditors in reply ... held the following: “12. ……What follows, as a corollary, is that it is not the burden of the Assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions between his creditor and sub- creditors nor is it the burden of the Assessee to prove that the sub-creditor had the creditworthiness

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1661/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AO also disallowed the interest paid of ₹4,99,125/- on the above said unsecured loans. Besides the ld. AO made ... cannot be sustained. Additionally, as discussed above, the assessee's burden is confined to prove identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of the transaction with reference to transaction between assessee and creditor and the same cannot be extended to include source of such creditor for the purpose

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AO also disallowed the interest paid of ₹4,99,125/- on the above said unsecured loans. Besides the ld. AO made ... cannot be sustained. Additionally, as discussed above, the assessee's burden is confined to prove identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of the transaction with reference to transaction between assessee and creditor and the same cannot be extended to include source of such creditor for the purpose

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1659/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AO also disallowed the interest paid of ₹4,99,125/- on the above said unsecured loans. Besides the ld. AO made ... cannot be sustained. Additionally, as discussed above, the assessee's burden is confined to prove identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of the transaction with reference to transaction between assessee and creditor and the same cannot be extended to include source of such creditor for the purpose