“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

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tejprakash Sohan Lal Dangi, Mumbai

ITA 7624/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 69C

this, all that the Commissioner observed is that the Assessee transacted through brokers at Calcutta, which itself raises doubt about the genuineness of the transactions and the financial result and performance of the Company was not such as would justify the increase in the share prices. Therefore, he reached

M/S Houston Tours and Travels, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5906/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Houston Tours & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Travels Circle 2(2) 3Rd Floor Manohardas Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Road, Boribuilder, C.S.T., Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400001 Pan/Gir No: Aajfh8097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jayant Bhatt Respondent By Shri V. Vinodkumar, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

were actually booked. The assessee had also not submitted Certificate of Shop and Establishment from the appropriate authority. The burden to prove the genuineness of the transaction and cash deposit was upon the assessee, which was not discharged properly by the assessee. Hence, addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. Shree Ganesh Edibles Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 308/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

discharge its onus on the following three issues: a. The identity of the lender b. The creditworthiness of the lender c. The genuineness of the transactions The onus to prove the three ingredients u/s 68 was discharged. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income ... shape of bogus persons and therefore legal onus has been created. What is relevant is the identity, creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transaction. All these three conditions have been established and onus of the assessee/appellant has been discharged u/s 68 of the Act. In my considered view

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. Shree Ganesh Edibles Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

Innovate Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 31/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250

scrip of LHSL was bogus and its share price was manipulated, though the appellant had uploaded all documents/ evidence in support of the genuineness of the transactions in the said scrip. Thus The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the loss

Aalaps Tradlink LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1754/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambleaalaps Tradlink Llp, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 56/B Sthanakwas Jain Society, Ward 1(2)(1), Nr. Naranpura Rly Crossing, Ahmedabad. Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013. [Pan : Abifa0287 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M S Chhajed, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rp Rastogi, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri M S Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 68

assessee’s partners which are as follows: Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– 8. The assessee has also given details of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. These evidences were very well before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). Details of each loan payment, along with

Patel Wines, Kheda vs. The Dy.CIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1740/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 250

held that mere identification of the creditor and showing payment through banking channels is not sufficient; the assessee must also establish the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor. In the present case, even that minimal standard has not been met. 13. The contention of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1180/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

bank statement showing the transaction and the ld. CIT(A) was not in any doubt regarding the three ingredients namely identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in this case and rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels

M/S. Nova Home Appliances Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8329/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Nova Home Appliances Private Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1), Limited, Mumbai Office No.8, Second Floor Ashoka Shopping Center, Vs. G T Hospital Complex, Lt Marg, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aadcn0493N (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

which according to the Ld. AO was not substantiated by the assessee as to the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. 2 M/s. Nova Home Appliances Private Limited 4. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 06.11.2024 upheld ... assessee has failed to establish the primary onus casted upon it including the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. DR also distinguished the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of SP Industries (supra) where there was no information received from

Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1795/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

submitted that the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of the documentary evidences related to the genuineness of the transactions such as contract notes, broker ledgers and bank statements. The Assessing Officer submitted that the brokerage of Rs. 3,33,960/- on the transaction in question is part

Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, Salem vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 1861/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. Ita No. 1861/Chny/2025 & Sa 69/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Jagtaji, V. Dcit, Central Circle, 6/21, Devanayagam Pillai, Salem-636007 St. Shevapet, Salem-636002 [Pan: Apopm 3624 H] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Jaydip Desai, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69A

gift was received from his father on two occasions but failed to substantiate the capacity of the donor to give such gifts and genuineness of the transaction. The AO also noted that the appellant had not furnished any bank account statement of his father to demonstrate cash withdrawals, which ... that in cases involving cash credits or unexplained money, the assessee is required to establish: 1. Identity of the creditor/donor, 2. Creditworthiness, 3. Genuineness of the transaction. Though identity and relationship are not in dispute, the crucial aspects of creditworthiness and genuineness of cash transactions remain unsubstantiated. Mere filing

Balaji Bullions and Commodities India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3755/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv

Section 133ASection 143(1)

Assessing Officer observed that identity nor creditworthiness of the part creditworthiness of the parties nor the genuineness of the ies nor the genuineness of the transactions had been established by the assessee. No confirmations transactions had been established by the assessee. No confirmations transactions had been established by the assessee ... accommodation entries. Given the assessee’s failure to sub accommodation entries. Given the assessee’s failure to sub the genuineness of tho the genuineness of those transactions during the assessment, the ring the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) was constrained to treat the same as Assessing Officer (AO) was constrained

Chetanbhai Sardarsinh Parmar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 192/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

consider that the appellant has duly fulfilled all the three (3) ingredients in respect of unsecured loan i.e. identity of the person, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the person while filing all supporting documentary evidences. Under the circumstances, the impugned addition. In view of the facts

Kiran Bala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 341/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, we find that as the assessee in the present case had not established the genuineness of the transaction of sale of gold ornaments and also had failed to produce any material which would irrefutably evidence that she owned the subject jewellery

Prafulla Kumar Malakar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. Kalawati Investments & Trading P Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 134/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

providers and accommodation entry providers without any evidence or involvement mentioned in such investigation reports and statements of such persons. To prove the genuineness of the transactions, the assessee provided all the supporting evidences like, ITR, contract notes, bank statement highlighting the transactions, etc. However, the AO made addition under ... explained and submitted evidences to prove nature and source of the investment made and also furnished all evidences in support of the genuineness of the transactions. The AO has not pointed out any deficiency in the documents or inherent weakness in the explanation or doubted genuineness of the transactions

Kiara Amit Duhlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8098/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115BSection 147Section 68

before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences to demonstrate the source of funds from her father and to support the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. CIT(A), however, was not persuaded and, inter alia, observed that the gift deed was unregistered and appeared

ACIT-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7561/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69C

failed to produce the parties for verification and had failed to discharge the onus to establish creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of INR.1,74,641/- under Section 69C of the Act in respect of interest on the aforesaid

Umiya Board and Paper Mills Private Limited, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 790/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.790/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Umiya Board & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Shree Ishwar Saw Mill Compound, New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur-492 009 Pan: Aaacu4746N

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 68

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly established the Identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and source of funds, and therefore the provision of section 68 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Hence, invoking ... notices issued to them u/s 133(6) and furnished bank statements, ITRs and other relevant documents with explanation to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Hence, invoking of section 68 of the Act under the abovesaid background is uncalled for, illegal and bad in law as well

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Raipur

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 455/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 455/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh, New Purena, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Ravigram, Ravigram S O, Civil Lines, Raipur, C. G., 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Ajnps2776H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

submission/details filed. Notice(s) under 133(6) of the Act were also issued to the following parties to verify the veracity and genuineness of the transactions but the notice(s) remained non- compliant in these cases. ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………. Thereafter, reference was made to VU for providing details by physical verification to prove ... assessee receiving any amount form the suppliers in cash. 8 DCIT, Circle-1(1) vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh 5.7. To prove the genuineness of the transactions, the assessee provided all the supporting evidences like purchase register, ledger account of suppliers, audited books of accounts and bank account statement highlighting

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle Nagpur, Nagpur vs. Vidharbha Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur

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

ITA 789/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR

Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

properly appreciating that the only relevant three-pronged test for examining such transactions is (a) the identity of the lender, (b) the genuineness of the transaction, and (c) the creditworthiness of the lender. In the present case, the creditworthiness of the lender-being a mere paper entity was not established ... submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has prescribed the guidelines according to which the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender has to be established. Since in the instant case the creditworthiness of the lender being mere a paper