“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 480/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 127Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

appellant has also contended that in Answer to Q. No. 33 Shri Sanjay Karnani categorically stated that (PB 46), The genuineness of these transactions is beyond any doubt. The amount has been received through banking channels. The identity of these lenders is well established as we have been purchasing ... through banking channels and were actual, genuine transactions. He stated that he would later provide documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. As there were a total of 23 lenders involved, Shri Sanjay Karnani needed to coordinate with the staff and accountant to compile

Royal Fincomm Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Ward 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 648/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

SEBI had given adverse findings in respect of these transactions and shall also furnish all evidence in support of the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and shall be at liberty to file all evidence in possession for the relief claimed. For statistical purposes

M/S. Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1)., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, having been remanded back to the file of Ld

ITA 326/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed & The 2 M/S Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd. Following Findings Of Ld. Cit(A) Would Summarize His Stand:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

share. Such high valuation details were also requested to be clarified by the appellant, which are necessary details to examine the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, vide hearing notice dated 24.02.2023, it was then pointed out to the appellant- "Also you have not yet submitted any evidences you want ... imagination cannot be construed to be a satisfactory explanation of the nature of the source. The assessee has miserably failed to establish genuineness of the transaction by cogent and credible evidence and that the investments made in its share capital were genuine. As noted above merely proving the identity

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Oscar Infra Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. Oscar Infra Pvt Ltd Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Office No. 707, 7Th Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Floor, Everest Nivara, Churchgate, Mumbai – Infotech Park, Plot No. 400020. D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Pan/Gir No. Aabco0152H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 70(2)

Mumbai. executed online through the stock exchange and reflected in the bank statement and books of account does not automatically establish the genuineness of the transactions, more particularly when there are doubts regarding the authenticity and commercial substance of such transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that although

Manasvi Project Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4921/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)

impugned order. It is submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the documents that proved the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 4.2 In respect of Ground no.2 the Ld.AR submitted that, the Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order restricted the profit rate at 8%, whereas ... that, the details furnished by the assessee was never verified and therefore merely based on the documents, it cannot be said that, the genuineness of the transaction, creditworthiness and the identity of the assessee stands established. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. In support, the assessee furnished a comprehensive set of documents demonstrating the legality and genuineness of the transaction. The relevant documents included- (i) Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by M/s. Twinkle Plantations Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Arun

Devang Bhupendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kapadia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

exonerated in any manipulation, it clearly proved genuineness of transaction Held, yes Whether further since Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry about genuineness of these transaction on documents submitted by assessee and relied only on evidences collected by DDIT Kolkata which were good only for reopening of assessment ... selected for scrutiny and the Assessee was show caused to justify the share transactions. 2.2 Though the Assessee in order to establish the genuineness of the transactions, before the AO submitted the relevant documents such as allotment letter of shares from the companies from which shares were purchased, extract

Sanjay Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2255/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanjay Malhotra, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (3), Hs – 23, Second Floor, Kailash Colony, Delhi. New Delhi – 122 002. (Pan : Aaipm0514F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Order : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.15,06,840/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

level of the apex Court it is settled that documented evidence regarding purchases and payments therefor through bank would establish the genuineness of the transaction in Pr.CIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 98 Taxmann.com 325. 4.8 While deciding the case, the NFAC has changed the head of addition from Sec.68

Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Dumka vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Deoghar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2025[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.163/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………............................……….……Appellant Industrial Area, Babupur, Muffasil Thana Dumka, Jharkhand – 814101. [Pan: Aabca4896Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Deoghar…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sushil Pransukha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 11.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012–13 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,57,551. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 On The Ground That The Assessee Had Raised Share Capital & Share Premium From Certain Entities, Whose Financial Capacity & Genuineness Of Investment Remained Unexplained. During Assessment, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Introduced Share Capital Of ₹37,50,000 From The Following Four Private Limited Companies:

Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 68

appeal, the CIT(A) sustained the addition. He held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, and non- compliance to summons under section 131 further supported the AO’s conclusion. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 11/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

with the submission of the assessee. According to him, the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions. He noted that summons issued under section 131 to the directors of the subscriber companies were not complied with. Relying on judicial precedents

NRI Academy of Sicences, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption Circle), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.213/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Vs. Nri Academy Of Sciences Income Tax Officer – Exemption 60-3-1/44 Yk Buildings Vijayawada Bus Route No. 5 Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada, Currency Nagar S.O. Vijayawada (Urban) Krishna – 520008, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatn4207C] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

Bengaluru had rendered the entire mechanism provided u/s.143(1)(a) as redundant and otiose.” 12. In the instant case, the genuineness of the transactions and identity of the payee was not disputed by the revenue. Further the CPC has not disposed of the objections raised by the assessee in response

Globus Housing, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

Assessing Officer regarding the three ingredients ie. proof regarding identity of the purchaser, the creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole. The burden of proving the source of a cash credit is on the assessee and the Assessing Officer is not required ... source as held in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad 1969 72 ITR 194 (SC). In the present case the genuineness of the transaction has not been established because on investigation, the existence of the company M/s. Presha Metallurgical Ltd. has not been established and it was revealed that

Mohammedsaqib Aiyub Puthawala, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 623/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

case of no or inadequate enquiry. Further, from the materials brought on record, it is evident that the assessee had duly explained the genuineness of the transactions, as the purchase and sale transactions were made through registered broker and all the transactions were duly reflected in the de-mat account

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1536/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

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 ... creditor, and it is not the business of the Assessee to find out the source of money of his creditor or of the genuineness of the transactions, which took between the creditor and subcreditor and/or creditworthiness of the sub-creditors, for, these aspects may not be within the special knowledge

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1535/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1 ), Mumbai vs. Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

through banking channels in a short span. This fact has already been noted by the Id. CIT (A) in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus genuineness of the transaction also cannot be doubted. 15. One very important fact which has been noted by the Id. CIT (A) is that in the case