ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla

121 TTJ 366Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1858 most cited

What is ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla authority for?

An addition for unexplained cash deposits cannot be made solely based on a time gap between cash withdrawals and subsequent cash deposits. The Assessing Officer must establish that the withdrawn cash was utilized for other purposes or was not available with the assessee to reject the explanation.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla · 121 TTJ 366 · cash withdrawal and deposit · time gap cash deposit · unexplained cash credit · Section 68 Income Tax Act · Section 69A Income Tax Act · addition on cash deposit · onus on Assessing Officer · proof of alternate use of cash

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 115BBESection 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 158bcpreponderance of probabilitysection 69bsection 115bbsection 115bsection 250(4)section 115bbeaddition under section 68live linkstamp duty valuesection 145(3)unexplained money

Judgments citing ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla

Dipak Balubhai Patel - HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 942/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Dipak Balubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, (HUF) Ward-5(3)(1), “Anutham”, Vs Ahmedabad Near Aavadh Dreamland, Opp. Shell Petrol Pump, Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad-380060 Gujarat PAN: AAEHD7688H (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Pritesh Shah, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 27-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 22-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-…

Govindappa Pedripad Sushila, Tumakuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1155/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 69A

…efore impossible to generate black money. 6. The ld. FAA after relying on judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkataraman v. CIT, 127 ITR 807 and judgments of the Tribunal in Neeta Breja (ITA No.524/Del/2017) & ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) allowed cash deposits Page 4 of 6 in FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 to the extent of Rs.24 lakhs and confirmed Rs.11,40,000. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. The ld. DR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that assessee is living alone and there is no other source of income e…

Sh. Kesar Kadir Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA 372/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…R “12. In the present case also the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT A did not show that above cash was not available in the hands of the assessee or have been spent on any other purposes. Further the coordinate bench in ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

Smt. Permila Devi Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

…r:- 12. In the present case also the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT A did not show that above cash was not available in the hands of the assessee or have been spent on any other purposes. Further the coordinate bench in ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

ACIT, Ncrb, Statue Circle vs. Balvir Singh Tomar, Adarsh Nagar

ITA 283/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ited balance sheet as on 31.03.2016 which was submitted online before demonetization. The same thus stood covered by the turnover and income of the immediately preceding year. In the case of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baldev Raj Charla [2009] 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) [ITAT], the Hon'ble ITAT has inter-alia observed as under "27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this explanation of the assessee was found correct that against these five deposits on dated 14th June, 1996, Rs. 31,000; 21…

Seven Energies Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purpose

ITA 520/HYD/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 520/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Seven Energies Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hig 85, Phase 5, Kphb Colony, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad. Telangana – 500085. Hyderabad [Pan:Aaocs4784N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Assessee राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Naveen Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 05/07/2024 आदेश / Order Aggrieved By The Order Dated 21/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Na"Onal Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Seven Energies Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal. 2. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Solar Power. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 6/11/2017 Declaring A Loss Of Rs. 5, 76, 360/-. During Scru"Ny, Learned Assessing Officer Noted That There Were Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs. 33.75 Lacs In The Account Of The Assessee During The Mone"Za"On Period. Assessee Explained To The Learned Assessing Officer That During The Month Of April/May, 2016 They Withdrew Certain Amounts To The Tune Of Rs. 45 Lacs, For The Purpose Of Se"Ling Wages & Other Pe"Y Expenditure Which Remained Payable Due

For Appellant: AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri M Naveen Kumar, DR

…thdrawal from bank account and redeposit the same into the bank, unless the learned Assessing Officer demonstrates that the amount in ques"on was used by the assessee for any other purpose. Gordhan vs ITO in ITA No. 811/Del/2015 and ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) are to cite a few. Even if we accept the conten"on of the learned Assessing Officer that out of the total withdrawal of rupees for"fy Lacs, the Rs. 5 Lacs withdrawn on 21/4/2016 was not available to the assessee to make a deposit during the mone"za"on period, s"ll the balance of Rs. 40 Lacs is sufficient to account for the deposits of Rs.…

Somavarapu Shoba Rani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed in part for sta"s"cal purpose

ITA 508/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri M Naveen Kumar, DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 508/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Somavarapu Shoba Rani Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-1, [PAN No. BJEPS5991N] Nalgonda अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Shri M Naveen Kumar, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 05/07/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 31/03/2024 passed by the le…

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…:- “12. In the present case also the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT A did not show that above cash was not available in the hands of the assessee or have been spent on any other purposes. Further the coordinate bench in ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

Rajan Krishnamurthy Iyer, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 4351/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority noticed that there was a time gap of seven months to ten months between the dates of withdrawal and dates of deposit.Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. In this regard, he took support of decision rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case Smt. Kavitha Chandra vs. CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 317, wherein the claim of redeposit of cash was not accepted. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe &For Respondent: Shri Suni Mathew, Sr.DR
Section 68

…T(A) should not be the reason to reject the explanations of the assessee. In support of her contentions, the ld.A.R placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) Jaya Aggarwal vs. ITO, (2018) 92 taxamann.com 108(Del) (b) ACIT vs. Beldev Raj Charla, (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Del-ITAT) (c) Jantakal Veera Bhadrappa vs. ITO (ITA No.711/Bang/2021 order dated 25/05/2022. (d) Sh. Mohd Manzoor vs. ITO (ITA No.166/Asr/2022 dated 21- 09-2023) 5. The ld. Departmental Representative, however, supported the order passed by the Tax Authorities. 6. I heard rival contentions and perused the record. The uncontroverted fact is that…

Inderjit Singh, Sangrur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward- Sangrur, Sangrur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Cit(A) Has Not Been Considered Properly. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld Ar Submitted That This Is A Case Of An Individual Who Is An Agriculturist. Notice Under Section 142(1) Dated 09.03.2018 Was Issued In The Case Of The Assessee For Filling The Return Of Income. The Department Issued The Said Notice To The Assessee On Account Of Information With The Department

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 69

…014) order dated 12.01.2015. (Chandigarh Bench) vi) Harcharan Singh vs ITO (ITA No.164/ASR/2015) order dated 3.2.2016. (Amritsar Bench) vii) ITO vs Chandan IMijjer in ITA No. 61/Asr/2016 order dated 08.08.2016 (Amritsar Bench) viii) ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Chawla 121 TTJ 366 (Del) ix) CIT vs Kulwant Rai as reported in 291 ITR 36 (Del HC) ix) Rajinder Singh vs ACIT in ITA No. 1439/Del/2017 order dated 06.02.2018 (Delhi Bench) x) ITO vs Mrs Deepali Sehgal in ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 order dated 05.09.2014 (Delhi Bench) xi) Gordhan vs ITO in ITA No. 811/Del/2015 vide order dated 19.10.2015. (Delhi Bench) xi) DCIT vs Smt Ve…

Arvind Walia, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 440/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 440/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Arvind Walia, Vs The ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi A-10/5, Ground Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPW 5761 G Assessee by : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Shweta Bansal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 31.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 09.01.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-30, New…

Shri Hareshkumar Jayantilal Mahadevwala HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

…Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (6) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 619 (Kar) (7) Vinatha Madhusdan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 151 (Mum Trib) (8) R.S. Diamond (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum Trib) (9) ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla & ors. 121 TTJ 366 (Del Trib) (10) Om Prakash Nahar Vs ITO (2022) 135 taxmann.com 377 (Del Trib) (11) Krishna Hiren Gujarati Vs ITO ITA No. 188/Srt/2022 (Surat Trib) On the submission that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act is not retrospective, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the following case laws: (12) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of…

P L Steels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia,CIT-DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial member ITA No. 632/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 P L Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, C/o Chaurasia and Associates, Circle 19(2), A-62, Navkunj Apartments, 87, I.P. New Delhi Extn. Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCP4322Q Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Sh. Venketesh Chaurasia, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Sapna Bhatia,CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 07.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement:13.11.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed…

Shri Ashish Kanjibhai Rathod, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 152/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. J. Boricha, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…e following case laws: (a) Smt. Teena Bethala Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1383/Bang/2019) dated 28/08/2019 (b) DCIT Vs. Karthik Construction Co. (ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016) dated 23/02/2018 (c) Shri Nikhil Nanda Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3644/Del/2013 (d) ACIT Vs. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) 7. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri V.J. Boricha appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the Lower Authorities and pleaded to uphold the same does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials availabl…

Sushil Kumar Jhabak, Bikaner vs. NFAC, Delhi / ITO, Ward-2, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ao With All Supporting Evidence But Ld. Ao Ignored While Relevant Facts So The Addition Made By Ao For Treating The Cash Deposit Rs. 5,50,000/- Unexplained & Charged Tax At A Special Rate Which Was Not Ought To So It Is Deserve To Be Deleted. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C. 3.The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Ground Sat Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143Section 234BSection 69A

…the AO demonstrate that the Sushil Kumar Jhabak vs. ITO amount in question has been used by the assesse for any other purpose. In my view addition is made on inferences and presumptions which is bad in law.” Like wise I the case of ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) also held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and cash deposits explanation of the assessee could not be rejected and addition on account of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into b…

Inderjeet, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2646/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshinderjeet, Vs. Ito, C/O. M/S. Sanjeev Anand & Ward-1(3), Associates, 77, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abspi6213Q Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 69

…and uphold by the ld CIT(A) may kindly be set aside. In view of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Jaya Aggarwal Vs. ITO reported as 302 CTR 241 (Del) and orders of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Baldev Raj Charla reported as 121 TTJ 366 (Del), Moongipa Investment Ltd Vs. ITO 147 TTJ 378 (Del). 5. Replying to the above the ld CIT DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposited to his bank account then the AO was right in making addition in the hands of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and ld CIT(A)…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 6(1)(2) v. M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, BussaUdyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCB1291J (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No. 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT(A) 407, 4th Floor Room No. 401, 4th Floor Udyog Bhavan C-Block, Civic Center Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Delhi Mumbai -…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 6(1)(2) v. M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, BussaUdyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCB1291J (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No. 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT(A) 407, 4th Floor Room No. 401, 4th Floor Udyog Bhavan C-Block, Civic Center Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Delhi Mumbai -…

Islamuddeen, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2648/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69

…rce of deposit in the creditors account if not found to be acceptable then also the addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee. Further placing reliance on the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla & Ors. reported as [2009] 121 TTJ 366 the ld. counsel submitted that the Tribunal in para 27 held that simply because there was a time gap between the cash withdrawals and redeposit the explanation of assessee cannot be dismissed when he has successfully demonstrated that he re-deposited the amount withdrawn from the bank earlier point of time. 6. Replying to the above, the ld. Senio…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 0619 (Kar) (8) Vinatha Madhusudan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 0151 (Mum Trib) (9) R.S. Diamonds India (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum-Trib) 8 Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor Vs ITO (10) ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charia & Ors. 121 TTJ 366 (Del-Trib) (11) Om Prakash Nahar Vs ITO (2022) 135 taxmann.com 377 (Del-Trib) 9. On retrospective amendment under Section 115BBE of the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the following case laws: (1) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 262 (S) (2) CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) (3) Sed…