Carissa Investment (P) Ltd., Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 22 January, 2021
5. ACIT vs., Vikrant Puri
[2016] 47 ITR (T) 708 [Delhi-Tribu.].
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.48 seconds)Acit, Circle-30(1), New Delhi vs Bhushan Kumar Jain, New Delhi on 31 July, 2023
7.8 In the case of ACIT Vs Vikrant Puri [2017] 82 taxmann.com 48 (Delhi - Trib.)
Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi held that "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash
credit (Loan) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Where assessee had furnished name,
address and PAN of creditor and genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness
of creditor was also fully established, addition made on account of loan taken
from said creditor was to be deleted."
Dcit, Circle-1,, Bikaner. vs M/S. Jain Carrying Corporation, ... on 26 April, 2024
3.19. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'H' in the case of ACIT vs. Vikrant Puri [2017]
82 taxmann.com 48 (Delhi Trib.) held that where assessee had furnished name,
address and PAN of creditor and genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness
I.T.A. No.369/Jodh/2018
M/s Jain Carrying Corporation 18
of the creditor was also fully established, the addition made on account of loan taken
from the said creditor was to be deleted. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished
name, address and PAN of creditor and genuineness of the transaction and
creditworthiness of the creditor was also fully established.
5.15. To sum up, the conspectus of the facts and circumstances discussed in the
preceding paras, clearly illustrate that transactions of loan entered by the appellant
firm with M/s Megapode VyapaarPvt. Ltd. (PAN AACCM0727D) were genuine
transaction and there was no material before the AO to conclude that the transaction
was a device to camouflage activities and to defraud the Revenue. There was
sufficient material to show that the transactions were genuine and not bogus. There is
no corroborative evidence brought on record by the AO on the basis of which it can be
concluded that assessee firm brought its unaccounted money in the shape of bogus
accommodation entries and subsequently any money/profit ever returned back or
received by the appellant company. Thus, it is wrong to allege that the appellant firm
was the real beneficiary of the amount received from this company.
3.20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and various judicial
pronouncements as discussed above, it is held that the appellant has fully discharged
the onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction
in the instant case and therefore, the AO was not justified in holding that the loans
obtained by the appellant from M/s. Megapode VyaaparPvt. Ltd. were not genuine and
therefore, further not justified in disallowing the interest paid thereon. Under these
facts and circumstances, the addition Rs. 97,30,208/- being the interest paid on loan
and addition of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- treating is bogus cash credit u/s. 68, are hereby
deleted. The ground nos. 1 and 2 regarding these issue are allowed."
1