← All Phrases

“peak credit theory”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68215 judgments

The decision most relied on for peak credit theory is Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari v. CIT (276 ITR 38), cited in 63 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on peak credit theory

Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari v. CIT
276 ITR 38 · 2005 · High Court
63
citing judgments

The peak credit theory applies only to credits and withdrawals that are held to be non-genuine. If the assessee claims all deposits are genuine, the benefit of the peak credit theory may not be available.

552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds v. CIT 11-12 3
118 Taxmann.com 166 · 2020 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The court considers the evidentiary value of unaudited books and loose papers when assessing income, particularly concerning trade creditors and their verification.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain v. ACIT Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi
84 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The assessment can apply the peak credit theory for additions related to unexplained credits or entries. Furthermore, assessment proceedings are not vitiated merely because the Department proceeded under an incorrect section if material existed to justify the assessment under a proper provision like section 148.

Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries
294 ITR 610 · 2007 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The peak credit theory is applicable only when the source and corresponding outgo of a deposit are unexplained, and it does not apply to issues concerning purchases.

Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), Mumbai
90 Taxmann.com 16 · 2018 · ITAT
35
citing judgments

Addition under section 69C for bogus purchases from non-existent suppliers is justified, even if purchase bills are produced and payments are made through banking channels, if other evidence is lacking.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. D.K. Garg
250 Taxmann 104 · 2017 · High Court
35
citing judgments

An assessee who acts as an accommodation entry provider and cannot explain the sources of deposits and corresponding payments is not entitled to the benefit of peak credit.

III v. Tirupati Construction Co.
55 Taxmann.com 308 · 2015 · High Court
23
citing judgments

The peak credit theory can be applied to determine unexplained income arising from a series of transactions, even when exact quantum is difficult to ascertain. However, it may not be applicable to singular unexplained credits.

Kaveri Rice Mills v. CIT
157 Taxmann 376 · 2006 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The High Court determines whether additions based on uncorroborated purchase invoices are justified when the revenue relies on multiple conflicting precedents.

Judgments citing peak credit theory

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 635/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

recoveries is made without owning up of these transactions. This issue is discussed in detail while deciding the issue of application of peak credit theory. It is also admitted fact that the assessee has not provided name, address and copy of ledger accounts of the persons to whom loans were

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 634/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

recoveries is made without owning up of these transactions. This issue is discussed in detail while deciding the issue of application of peak credit theory. It is also admitted fact that the assessee has not provided name, address and copy of ledger accounts of the persons to whom loans were

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 633/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

recoveries is made without owning up of these transactions. This issue is discussed in detail while deciding the issue of application of peak credit theory. It is also admitted fact that the assessee has not provided name, address and copy of ledger accounts of the persons to whom loans were

Virender Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2689/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153C

entire factual matrix of the case, we hold that no addition is warranted in the case of the assessee. In the result, the peak credit theory set out by the id. CIT(A) would also 10 become infructuous. The appeals of the assessee on this ground are allowed and accordingly

M/S Raju Upadhyay, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.475/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2011-12) Raju Upadhyay, B-5/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaqpu-9644-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Ward-34(2), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Shubham Jha & Sahil Upadhayay, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 23.10.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Shubham Jha, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Document Writer In The District Courts, Delhi. The Assessee Entered Into An Agreement To Sell Dated 05.05.2010 With Vardhman Business P. Ltd. For Sale Of Agricultural Land Admeasuring 68 Bigha 10 Biswa (14.25 Acre Approximately) Situated At Village Sabhapur, River Belt, Delhi For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 10,45,50,000/-.

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham Jha & Sahil UpadhayayFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 68

perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has invoked the provision of section 144 of the Act and has thereafter, applying peak credit theory has made addition u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) has upheld the addition. The assessee was not represented by any tax consultant

Solo Steel Tech, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 316/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A

SOLO STEELTECH v.PCIT ITA No. 316/Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-14) Modus Operandi adopted by the assessee was described by the assessee

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

ITA 46/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

that there existed any nexus whereby the amount deposited in cash had been withdrawn in cash and thereafter redeposited to take benefit under peak credit theory. [Para 9] In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The assessee's appeal stands dismissed. [Para 11]" Hon'ble Supreme

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 45/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinha

that there existed any nexus whereby the amount deposited in cash had been withdrawn in cash and thereafter redeposited to take benefit under peak credit theory. [Para 9] = In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. [Para 11]” Hon’ble Supreme

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Cirl-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

that there existed any nexus whereby the amount deposited in cash had been withdrawn in cash and thereafter redeposited to take benefit under peak credit theory. [Para 9]  In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. [Para 11]” Hon’ble Supreme

The ITO Ward-1 (2) (1), Rajkot vs. Shri Khrajmal Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Rajkot

ITA 135/RJT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

The ITO Ward-1 (2) (1), Rajkot vs. Shri Khrajmal Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Rajkot

ITA 134/RJT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

that there existed any nexus whereby the amount deposited in cash had been withdrawn in cash and thereafter redeposited to take benefit under peak credit theory. [Para 9] In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The assessee's appeal stands dismissed. [Para 11]" Hon'ble Supreme

The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Junagadh vs. Shri Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Junagadh

ITA 33/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Junagadh vs. Shri Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Junagadh

ITA 31/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Shri Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Junagadh vs. The Income Tax Officer-Ward 1(2)(4), Rajkot

ITA 16/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot vs. Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot

ITA 49/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot

ITA 4/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

that there existed any nexus whereby the amount deposited in cash had been withdrawn in cash and thereafter redeposited to take benefit under peak credit theory. [Para 9] In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The assessee's appeal stands dismissed. [Para 11]" Hon'ble Supreme ... that there existed any nexus whereby the amount deposited in cash had been withdrawn in cash and thereafter redeposited to take benefit under peak credit theory. [Para 9] In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The assessee's appeal stands dismissed. [Para 11]" Hon'ble Supreme

Shri Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 171/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Paras Rameshchandra Doshi, Rajkot vs. The PCIT - 1, Rajkot

ITA 280/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Shakti Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 4589/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shakti Singh, Vs. Nfac, Bargaon B. O. Kamalpur, Delhi Saharanpur, 247452, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ceyps1579C Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Revenue By: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148

income of the assessee. For this purpose, the only method is to consider the peak negative balance of cash by adopting the peak credit theory, which is a recognized method of determination of negative cash balance in view of rotation of funds happening in the bank accounts. The assessee

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 655/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

insight portal and bank statements, without corroborative evidence. 7. Without prejudice if at all addition is warranted, it should be based on peak credit theory rather than the entire deposit amount of Rs.52,38,245/-. 8. The appellant seeks the right to amend, modify, or add grounds as necessary.” Submission