How many judgments are there on Section 11A?

BharatTax indexes 96 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 11A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 11A of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 11A of the Income Tax Act?

Hastimal v. CIT (49 ITR 273) is the decision most relied on for Section 11A, cited in 57 judgments. An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 11A?

Hastimal v. CIT (49 ITR 273) — 57 citing judgments; CIT (Exemption) v. Shiv Kumar Sumitra Devi Smarak Shikshan Sansthan (113 Taxmann.com 334) — 9 citing judgments.

The decision most relied on for Section 11A is Hastimal v. CIT (49 ITR 273), cited in 57 of the 96 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 11A

Hastimal v. CIT

49 ITR 273 · 1963 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

CIT (Exemption) v. Shiv Kumar Sumitra Devi Smarak Shikshan Sansthan

113 Taxmann.com 334 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 11A

M/S Rashtriya Chem. and Fer. Ltd vs. Comm. of Central Ex. and Serv. Tax(Ltu)

C.A. No.-002219-002220 - 2013Supreme Court24 Mar 2026

Bench: The Cestat Against The Order-In- Original Dated 27.01.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax As The Original Adjudicating Authority. On The Other Hand, Appeal No. E/801/10-Mum Was Filed Before The Cestat Against The Order-In-Original Dated 04.02.2010 Passed By The Aforesaid Commissioner. By The Common Order Dated 27.03.2012, Both The Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Cestat Affirming The Levy Of Duty Qua The Two Orders-In-Original. Cestat Also Upheld The Penalty Imposed By The Adjudicating Authority Under Section 11Ac Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 But Set Aside The Penalties Imposed Under Rule 173Q Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 & Under Rule 25 Of The Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Section 11A

Uttarpratha Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3469/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi/Ms. KetkkiFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, SR DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Uttarpratha Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3468/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi/Ms. KetkkiFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, SR DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Uttarpratha Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3467/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi/Ms. KetkkiFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, SR DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd

C.A. No.-001121-001121 - 2016Supreme Court30 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 11ASection 11A(1)Section 11A(4)Section 35L

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai 1 vs. M/S Morarjee Gokuldas Spg.and Wvg.Co. Ltd

C.A. No.-003039-003039 - 2011Supreme Court24 Mar 2023

Bench: This Court Is Whether The Separate Notice Under Section 11A Of The Central Excise Act Is Necessary For The Recovery Of The Amount When An Erroneous Refund Is Granted Through The Speaking Order Is Reviewed Under Section 35E Of The Act? 2.1 The Facts Leading To The Present Appeal In Nutshell Are As Under: 2.2 The Respondent Herein Was At The Relevant Time A Manufacturer Of Cotton Yarn Which It Consumed Captively In Its Composite Mills For Weaving Of Fabric. In October, 1980 Vide Judgment In The Case Of M/S. J.K. Cotton 2

Section 11ASection 35E

Improvement Trust, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions) Ward, Jalandhar

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

ITA 201/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

Sri. Krishna Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/11553/2019HC Karnataka06 Sept 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 11551 Of 2019 (La-Res) C/W Writ Petition No. 25329 Of 2017 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 25759 Of 2017 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 11550 Of 2019 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 11553 Of 2019 (La-Res)

Section 11ASection 24(1)(A)Section 25

M Suresh Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/11551/2019HC Karnataka06 Sept 2022

Section 11ASection 24(1)(A)Section 25

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central -1 Kolkata vs. M/S Shyam Sundar Co Jewellers Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed and the

ITAT/25/2021HC Calcutta31 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11Section 35

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

The appeal is dismissed and the

ITA/25/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11Section 35

Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd vs. Commr.of Central Excise Calcutta

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-000037-000037 - 2009Supreme Court08 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 35

Bangalore Development Authority vs. Doddalakkappa

WA/3855/2010HC Karnataka17 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 17(1)Section 4Section 4(1)Section 6(1)

M/S. the Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltdner of Central Excise vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5297/2008Supreme Court09 Dec 2019

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 11A

M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

C.A. No.-005297-005297 - 2008Supreme Court09 Dec 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia vs. M/S. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd

The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid items

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8609/2019Supreme Court14 Nov 2019

Bench: 2 Judges

Commr.of Central Excise Commissionerate vs. M/S Krishna Wax (P) Ltd

The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid items

C.A. No.-008609 - 2019Supreme Court14 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 11Section 11ASection 35L

M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Unit Bhilai Steel Plant) Ispat Bhawan . Through Its Sr. Manager (F and A) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Ketan V. Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3288/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.3288/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.D.R

Section 10(38)Section 11ASection 143(3)Section 14A

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-004822-004825 - 2015Supreme Court12 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER