Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT

310 ITR 227High Court2009#2375 most cited

What is Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT authority for?

An assessment or addition to income, especially in search cases under Section 153C or for unexplained transactions/assets, requires concrete, decipherable material and a satisfied foundational precondition; mere presumptions or inferences are insufficient to sustain such additions.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Amarjit Singh Bakshi HUF · 310 ITR 227 · Section 153A · Section 153C · search assessment · unexplained additions · absence of material · foundational precondition · jurisdiction · concrete evidence · deletion of addition

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 132(4A)Section 69Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 44afjewellery found during searchunexplained jewellerysection 150section 147(1)section 147(b)third party informationrelated party transactionsection 65bsection 65section 147(a)section 132(4a)

Judgments citing Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT

PRASHANT SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2612/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanprashant Soni, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 7, M-50, First Floor, Delhi. Guru Harkishan Nagar, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi – 110 087. (Pan : Basps5961H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 30.08.2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Raised Legal Issue Relating To Assumption Of Jurisdiction Under Section 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) By Raising Ground Nos.1 & 2 Which Read As Under :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao & Impugned Order Passed By The Cit (A) Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 292C

…ransactions between appellant and M/s Jindal Bullion Ltd. It is relevant to state here that decoding in absence of any material is patently untenable, as has been held by the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT vs. Girish Chowdhary ii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaram iii) 68 ITD 407 (Jab) at page 427 Agrawal Motors 12. In view of the above, he submitted that since the foundational precondition has not been satisfied, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. He further submitted that the…

ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHESHWARI SALES CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1306/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “C“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The ITO Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin v/s. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AALFM 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR Revenue by : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख…

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…) Ltd Vs. Dy. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 68 ITD 312 (Jaipur) Addition could not be made in the hands of assessee company on the basis of contents of a diary on an employee. (iv) Amarijit Singh Bakshi HUF vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 75 (Del) No addition can be made on the basis of notings on documents found during search at third party place, when assessee was not given any opportunity for cross examination. (v) PS. Venkateshan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 74 ITD 298 (Cal) Addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of statement given by thi…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO,WARD-4, BULANDSHAHR

ITA 2898/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…angeshkar (Miss) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT VS. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. 861TD 13 (Del) т™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran 82 ITD 85 (Mum) т™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills ITA No.(s) 5516 & 5517/D/2012_AY(s) 2006-07 and…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9896/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xi) 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills xiii) ITA No.(s) 5516 & 551…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9318/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xi) 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills xiii) ITA No.(s) 5516 & 551…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9317/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xi) 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills xiii) ITA No.(s) 5516 & 551…

SANJEEV KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 filed by the Revenue is partly

ITA 8590/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT VS. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) т™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) т™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) xi) xii) xiii) xiv) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills ITA No.(s) 5516…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR UP vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8444/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xi) 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills xiii) ITA No.(s) 5516 & 551…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8443/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xi) 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills xiii) ITA No.(s) 5516 & 551…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

ITA 8442/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT VS. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) т™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) т™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) xi) xii) xiii) xiv) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills ITA No.(s) 5516…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1553/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xi) 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills xiii) ITA No.(s) 5516 & 551…

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1011/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del) SMC Share Broker Ltd v) 160 Taxman 485 (Del) CIT vs. JMD Computers & Communications (P) Ltd. vi) 861TD 13 (Del) ™ Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT vii) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) Krishna Textiles vs. CIT viii) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) CIT vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran ix) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) ™ S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT x) ITA No. 507/2009 (Guj) dated 27.2.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xi) 145 ITJ 340 (Kol) Fort Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT xii) ITA No. 208/2011 dated 12.9.2012 (P&H) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills xiii) ITA No.(s) 5516 & 551…

RAJESH SHIVJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 525/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainrajesh Shivji Shah Vs. Ito – 20(3)(1) Room No. 10, 2Nd Floor, 142 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chakan Niwas, St. Paul St. Chambers, Lower Parel Hindmata, Dadar (E), 400013. Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aafps4342A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…ce such expenditure is treated as unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee, then the same shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. 8. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT, 310 ITR 227 has categorically held that under Sec. 69C of the Act, the onus is on the revenue to prove that the income really belongs to the assessee. However in the present case the assessee has already submitted all the required supportive documents in the shape of ledger, statement of account, copies of purchase bills, bank statements and proof regarding…

M. KAMALAKANNAN,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 946/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.946/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 M. Kamalakannan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By Legal Heir K. Kumaravel, Income Tax, No. 44, Kavi Medicals, Gudiyatham Central Circle 3(4), Road, Pallikonda, Vellore 635 809. Chennai. [Pan:Avspk5120C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. M. Nuzhath Khanam, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 149 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Ms. M. Nuzhath Khanam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

…not belonging to the assessee, which is substantiated by evidence, cannot be made addition under section 69A of 4 I.T.A. No.946/Chny/23 the Act and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. A.N. Dyaneswaran 297 ITR 135. She argued that the Hon’ble High was pleased to answer question No. 2 & 7 in favour of the assessee by upholding the order of the Tribunal in holding that the cash found should not be taxed in the hands of the assessee therein as it was belongs to some other assessees. 8. The ld. DR Shri S, Maruthu Pandian, CIT argued that the assessee has not…

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 980/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…r doubted the purchases, the Assessing Officer was required to make further enquiry, which he did not make. The High Court in the above case, referred to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of it Krishna Textiles v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372/[2009] 310 ITR 227 to observe that in that case it was held that the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The Assessing Officer in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. Hon'ble High Court in the above case deleted the addition by observing that the Tribunal had given a finding of fact by ana…

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 1080/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…r doubted the purchases, the Assessing Officer was required to make further enquiry, which he did not make. The High Court in the above case, referred to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of it Krishna Textiles v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372/[2009] 310 ITR 227 to observe that in that case it was held that the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The Assessing Officer in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. Hon'ble High Court in the above case deleted the addition by observing that the Tribunal had given a finding of fact by ana…

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…s of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel Vs. CIT (2009) 222 CTR (Guj) 138 (xii) CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del) 20 Goyal Vegoils Ltd. vs. DCIT (xiii) CIT Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 105 (Del) (xiv) CIT Vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran (2008) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) (xv) CIT Vs. S.M Aggarwal 292 ITR 43 (xvi) Straptex India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum) (xvii) R.W. Promotions (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 54 (Bom.) (xviii) Obulapuram Mining Co, (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 160 ITD 224 (Bang. - Trib.) (xix) CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281/215 Taxman 581 (Guj.) (x…

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

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

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…) 306 ITR 27 (Del) (xi) Heirs & LRs of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel Vs. CIT (2009) 222 CTR (Guj) 138 (xii) CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del) (xiii) CIT Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 105 (Del) (xiv) CIT Vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran (2008) 297 ITR 135 (Mad) (xv) CIT Vs. S.M Aggarwal 292 ITR 43 (xvi) Straptex India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum) (xvii) R.W. Promotions (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 54 (Bom.) (xviii) Obulapuram Mining Co, (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 160 ITD 224 (Bang. - Trib.) (xix) CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281/215 Taxman 581 (Guj.) (xx…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT vs. M/S. J. Y. RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 150/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 132(4)Section 147

…far as the appellant is concerned and the additions made on the basis of 'dumb' document in the hands of third person ore not legally sustainable. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad held in the case of Krishan Textiles v/s, CIT (2009) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) that an amount found credited in the name of the assessee in the books of another party, the same cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee, The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v/s Vivek Agrawal (2015) 121 DTR 241 held that if the document found is unsigned by the assesses, it could be held as a dumb document an…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (310 ITR 227) — Cited in 49 Judgments | BharatTax