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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2004 (7) TMI 270 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, deletes Rs. 1,50,000 addition under IT Act section 68 The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra ruled in favor of the assessee in a case challenging the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 68 of the IT Act. The ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, deletes Rs. 1,50,000 addition under IT Act section 68

                          The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra ruled in favor of the assessee in a case challenging the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 68 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing creditor confirmations and IT return details, while the Revenue failed to refute the genuineness of the loans. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) decision, emphasizing the importance of meeting evidentiary requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition, highlighting the significance of proving the genuineness of loans under section 68 of the IT Act.




                          Issues:
                          - Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 68 of IT Act challenged by the assessee.
                          - Validity of the order passed by CIT(A) questioned by the assessee.
                          - Discharge of onus under section 68 by the assessee in proving the genuineness of loans.

                          Analysis:

                          1. Addition under Section 68 of IT Act:
                          The appeal involved the challenge to the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 68 of the IT Act. The assessee had taken loans from two individuals, supported by account payee cheques and confirmations from the creditors. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) doubted the capacity of the creditors and the source of deposits in their bank accounts. The Tribunal noted that the creditors were income-tax assessees, had confirmed the loans, and provided details of their income and source of funds. The Tribunal held that the onus placed on the assessee under section 68 was discharged by providing creditor confirmations and IT return details. The Revenue failed to provide evidence refuting the genuineness of the loans, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition.

                          2. Validity of CIT(A) Order:
                          The assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was bad on facts and in law. Despite the submissions made by the assessee, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and submissions, found that the assessee had fulfilled the requirements under section 68, and there was no evidence contradicting the genuineness of the loans. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, indicating a disagreement with the CIT(A) decision.

                          3. Discharge of Onus under Section 68:
                          The crux of the issue revolved around the discharge of onus by the assessee under section 68 of the IT Act. The Tribunal emphasized that when the assessee provides creditor confirmations, IT return details, and the source of funds, the onus is considered discharged. In this case, both creditors were income-tax assessees, confirmed the loans, and explained the source of deposits. The Tribunal highlighted that doubting the capacity of creditors solely based on cash deposits before issuing cheques was insufficient without concrete evidence linking the deposits to the assessee. As the Revenue failed to present such evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be sustained, leading to its deletion.

                          In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra delved into the intricacies of section 68 of the IT Act, emphasizing the importance of discharging the onus placed on the assessee in proving the genuineness of loans. The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 was based on the assessee meeting the evidentiary requirements and the lack of contrary evidence from the Revenue. The analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the legal principles involved and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's appeal.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found