ACIT v. Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.)

294 ITR 488High Court2007#9877 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.)

ACIT - 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. R&B INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘जे’’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘J’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT-13(3)(1), M/s R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAECM3616P राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajendra Kumar- DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee b…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…present appeal, the assessee duly fulfilled the conditions enshrined u/s 68 of the Act and produced necessary evidence for its claim. 3.5. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488, supports the case of the Revenue. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Anil Kumar 392 ITR 552 (Del.), wherein it was held that mere identification of the donor and movement of gift through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of gift. Now, in the light of the foregoing discussion, we shall examine the facts of the pres…

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREEDHAM BUILDERS, MUMBAI

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…present appeal, the assessee duly fulfilled the conditions enshrined u/s 68 of the Act and produced necessary evidence for its claim. 2.6. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488, supports the case of the Revenue. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Anil Kumar 392 ITR 552 (Del.), wherein it was held that mere identification of the donor and movement of gift through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of gift. 2.7. Now, we shall analyze certain cases wherein either the parties are same or the…

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. 42 Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2.7. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488, supports the case of the Revenue. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Anil Kumar 392 ITR 552 (Del.), wherein it was held that mere identification of the donor and movement of gift through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of gift. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I found that the submissions of the assesse…

ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI vs. RAM TEXTILES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3478/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

Section 133(6)Section 68

…he present appeal, the assessee duly fulfilled the conditions enshrined u/s 68 of the Act and produced necessary evidence for its claim. 2.5. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488, supports the case of the Revenue. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Anil Kumar 392 ITR 552 (Del.), wherein it was held that mere identification of the donor and movement of gift through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of gift. Keeping in view, the totality of facts, attendant circumstances, human probabilities, a…

DHANRAJ MILLS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD)-II CEN RG-7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…resent appeal, the assessee neither fulfilled the conditions enshrined u/s 68 of the Act nor produced necessary evidence for its claim. 2.10. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488, supports the case of the Revenue. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Anil Kumar 392 ITR 552 (Del.), wherein it was held that mere identification of the donor and movement of gift through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of gift. Keeping in view, the totality of facts, attendant circumstances, human 13 Dhanraj Mill…

SMT. SUNITA SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4618/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4618/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sunita Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-28, Acharya Niketan, Ward-36(34), Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anups7011G Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ca Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.06.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…for making the gift. Therefore, the addition was rightly made by the AO considering the gifts as non-genuine and the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the addition. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Rajeev Tandon Vs ACIT (2007) 294 ITR 488 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Rajeev Tandson (2007) 108 ITD 560 (Del.) 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parities and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the source of deposits in the bank account on 16.12.2008 and 13.02.2009 was stated by the assessee to be out of the gifts receive…

SH. ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3587/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, D.R
Section 133A

…to 9 ITA No.3587 & 4075/Del./2012 produce them. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee did not prove the occasion, relationship and reciprocity of the gift as required by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order in the case of Rajeev Tandon reported in 294 ITR 488 read with the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT's order in the same case reported in 294 ITR (AT) 219. No contrary material is adduced on behalf of the assessee before us. Considering all these facts, especially that the assessee had surrendered this gift of Rs.15 lacs vide letter dated 29.12.2009 during the assessment proceedings itself by giving its stat…

SIDHARTH JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3888/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Sh. Sidharth Jain, C-780, New Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2), Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaapj2273Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 69A

…d not even have the capacity to give out a gift of Rs. 5,00,000/-. This is in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) and Rajeev Tandon Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 294 ITR 488 (Delhi). 26. In view of the discussion above, the assessee fails in Ground of Appeal No. 6.” 11 AY: 2005-06 6.4 In view of above facts and circumstances, we hold that the CIT(A) has given well reasoned finding on the issue in dispute and no interference is required in the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly,…

HITENDRA M GHOSH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5347/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hitendra M. Ghosh, Ito, 28, Veena Beena, Gr. Fl. Ward-19(1)(3), बनाम/ Opp. Bandra Station, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400050 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Acmpg7670A

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…from whom claimed loan was taken. Even no confirmation was filed before the Assessing Officer regarding the genuineness of claimed loan. 2.3. The ratio laid down in ACIT vs Rajeev Tandon 294 ITR (AT) 219 (Del.), which was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court , in 294 ITR 488, supports the case of the Revenue. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Anil Kumar 392 ITR 552 (Del.), wherein it was held that mere identification of the donor an movement of gift through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of gift. Keeping in view, the totality of facts, attendant circumstances, human probabilities, an…

Sarita Aggarwal

ITA/133/2003HC Delhi04 Feb 2015

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Who By Order Dated 27Th February, 1998, Deleted The Addition After Taking On Record Additional Evidence. Revenue On Appeal, Has Succeeded Before 2015:Dhc:1152-Db

Section 122Section 260A

…n there was nothing on record to show financial capacity of the donor, their creditworthiness and what kind of relationship the donors had with the assessee, addition would be justified. In Rajeev Tandon versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 294 ITR 488 (Del), the genuineness of the gift was not accepted as the two donors had no connection with the assessee. This it was observed, was quite unusual and also unnatural. The Court held that it was incredible for a complete stranger to make gift of lacs of rupees only because the person wanted money to purchase a house. The surrounding circum…