Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>ITAT decision: Assessee's appeal partially allowed, emphasizing creditor genuineness.</h1> <h3>Samco Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-2, Meerut</h3> Samco Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-2, Meerut - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 58,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unsecured loans.2. Disallowance of interest of Rs. 7,02,000/- on the aforesaid loan amount.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 58,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing and sale of automobile bushes and washers, filed its return of income declaring Rs. 82,92,990/-. During the assessment, the AO noted unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 3,07,01,788/- and requested details, confirmations, transaction details, and sources of funds from the assessee. Notices under Section 133(6) were issued to the loan depositors. The AO observed discrepancies in the depositors' financials, such as higher deposit amounts compared to their income returns and low average bank balances with recent cash deposits before issuing cheques. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 58,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, questioning the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.The assessee contested the addition before the CIT(A), providing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, and bank statements for all creditors, asserting that the loans were genuine and routed through banking channels. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, noting low income declarations by creditors and unexplained sources of income in some cases. The creditors' non-appearance before the AO was also cited.Upon appeal, the ITAT considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including confirmations and bank statements. The ITAT referenced various judicial precedents, emphasizing that the assessee is not required to prove the source of the source. The ITAT found that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for most creditors. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the addition for creditors Smt. Shashi Lata Bhargav, Shri Prateek Ahluwalia, Shri Sarin Kumar, M/s T.S. Sethi & Sons, M/s C.S. Sethi & Sons, and M/s G.S. Sethi & Sons, noting that the AO did not conduct further investigations or prove that the funds originated from the assessee.However, the ITAT upheld the addition for Smt. Kamini Ahluwalia, citing cash deposits equivalent to the loan amount just before issuing cheques, indicating a lack of genuine transaction. The ITAT referenced similar judgments where such cash deposits before loan issuance were deemed non-genuine.2. Disallowance of Interest of Rs. 7,02,000/-:The AO disallowed the interest paid on the unsecured loans, amounting to Rs. 7,02,000/-, due to the unexplained nature of the loans. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.The ITAT, while addressing the main issue of unsecured loans, also considered the interest disallowance. Given the deletion of the addition for most creditors, the ITAT proportionately deleted the interest disallowance for those creditors. However, for Smt. Kamini Ahluwalia, where the addition was upheld, the ITAT confirmed the proportionate interest disallowance.Conclusion:The ITAT partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting additions and interest disallowance for most creditors, except for Smt. Kamini Ahluwalia, where both the addition and interest disallowance were confirmed. The judgment emphasized that the assessee need not prove the source of the source and that mere low income of creditors is insufficient to doubt the genuineness of transactions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found