Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

        -

        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>Assessee wins appeal as cash creditors' identity and creditworthiness proven through bank statements and tax returns under section 68</h1> <h3>LB Saree Emporium Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata</h3> LB Saree Emporium Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 1,26,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash credits from eight parties.2. Disallowance of interest expenditure related to the alleged unexplained cash credits.Detailed Analysis:1. Addition under Section 68 for Unexplained Cash Credits:The primary issue in this appeal was the addition of Rs. 1,26,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was partly confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO concluded that the unsecured loans from 31 parties, amounting to Rs. 3,23,00,000/-, were unexplained cash credits due to inadequate responses to notices under Section 133(6). The CIT(A) upheld the addition for eight parties totaling Rs. 1,26,50,000/- due to issues such as wrong or missing PANs.Upon review, the Tribunal examined the evidence provided by the assessee, including income tax returns, bank statements, and financial statements for each of the eight parties. It was found that:- Mukund Chhaparia (Rs. 20,00,000/-): The Tribunal noted that he was a regular tax assessee with sufficient income and maintained regular bank balances, thus proving his creditworthiness.- Anju Chowdhury (Rs. 20,00,000/-): The Tribunal found that she had a capital balance of approximately Rs. 1.86 crores and regular banking transactions, thus confirming her ability to provide the loan.- Murari Lal Bharatiya (Rs. 10,00,000/-): With a declared income of Rs. 14,53,140/-, the Tribunal saw no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the loan.- Premchand Gupta HUF (Rs. 10,00,000/-): The Tribunal found the details provided, including tax assessments, sufficient to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction.- Sharda Devi Sarawgi (Rs. 5,00,000/-): Her income and bank statements were consistent with the loan amount, and the loan was repaid, negating the applicability of Section 68.- Bansal Traders (Rs. 11,50,000/-): The Tribunal noted that the proprietor, Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal, had a significant turnover, affirming the genuineness of the transaction.- Zori Varieties (Rs. 25,00,000/-): The Tribunal found that the business was genuine with regular funds, thus the loan was legitimate.- Ganpati Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 25,00,000/-): Despite the initial issue of no PAN, the Tribunal found the company regularly assessed to tax with substantial business activities, thus justifying the loan.The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had successfully demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for all eight parties, thereby negating the applicability of Section 68. The Tribunal referenced similar cases where complete documentation led to the deletion of additions under Section 68.2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:The second issue was the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 9,45,564/- related to the alleged unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal, after confirming the legitimacy of the loans, also found that the interest paid on these loans was genuine. The interest was paid through banking channels with tax deducted at source, and no discrepancies were noted by the AO. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleting both the addition of Rs. 1,26,50,000/- under Section 68 and the disallowance of interest expenditure. The Tribunal's decision was based on the thorough examination of evidence provided by the assessee, demonstrating the legitimacy of the loans and related interest payments. The appeal was pronounced in favor of the assessee on 02/07/2024.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found