Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…ales Tax Department. Without causing such further enquiries in respect of the purchases, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to make the addition under Section 69C.”In para 15 Court referred to decision of High Court of Gujrat in case of KRISHNA TEXTILES 310 ITR 227 (GUJ)holding onus on revenue to prove that the income really belong to assesse. In para 16 referred the fact that all payments were made through banking channel. In SHAPPONJi PALLONJi & CO 423 ITR 220 (BOM) The Court observed"15. From the assessment order, we find that assessing officer had noted that the respondent - assessee had made purchases…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…ales Tax Department. Without causing such further enquiries in respect of the purchases, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to make the addition under Section 69C.”In para 15 Court referred to decision of High Court of Gujrat in case of KRISHNA TEXTILES 310 ITR 227 (GUJ)holding onus on revenue to prove that the income really belong to assesse. In para 16 referred the fact that all payments were made through banking channel. In SHAPPONJi PALLONJi & CO 423 ITR 220 (BOM) The Court observed"15. From the assessment order, we find that assessing officer had noted that the respondent - assessee had made purchases…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…ales Tax Department. Without causing such further enquiries in respect of the purchases, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to make the addition under Section 69C.”In para 15 Court referred to decision of High Court of Gujrat in case of KRISHNA TEXTILES 310 ITR 227 (GUJ)holding onus on revenue to prove that the income really belong to assesse. In para 16 referred the fact that all payments were made through banking channel. In SHAPPONJi PALLONJi & CO 423 ITR 220 (BOM) The Court observed"15. From the assessment order, we find that assessing officer had noted that the respondent - assessee had made purchases…

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

…ngeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 96 DTR (Del) 299 that in case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO where assessee has furnished all the details, no addition can be made. 12.40 The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi, in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT in 263 ITR 75, held that there is no documentary evidence to support the passing of cash and further there is no evidence about the existence of the amount mentioned in the loose sheets of paper as embedded in other cash, jewellery or investment. 12.41 In view of the above facts and circumstances as also the several judicial precedents, the addition of Rs.17,26…

JCIT (OSD) 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Sanjay Parmar, Mumbai

In the result revenues appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhjcit(Osd)-8(1)(1), M/S Sanjay V. Parmar, Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, 3,2 Ooranwala Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. B.A. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400012. Vs Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.61/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2014-15) M/S Sanjay V. Parmar, Jcit(Osd)-8(1)(1), Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, 3,2 Ooranwala Mansion, Dr. B.A. Road, Parel, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400020. Vs Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent : Shri T.S. Khalsa (Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2021 Order

…umption u/s 292C and132 (4A) applies only to the Searched person. a) Bimal Kumar Damani v. CIT 261 ITR 635 (Cal-HC) Heavy burden is on revenue to prove that seized documents found at premise of searched person belong to other person a) Krishna Textiles v CIT {310 ITR 227 (Guj-HC) b) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713 (SC) 9. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue relied upon the orders of the AO and the findings in the search and seizure at Nish Developers, the pen drive found and the statement of employees of Nish Developers. 10. Referring to the above, the DR for the rev…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

…st on whose report the assessment was based despite several requests, assessment was rightly set aside by the CIT(A) and Tribunal for violation of principles of natural justice and no substantial question of law arose. 23.30 In CIT Vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran (2008) 297 ITR 135 (Mad), it was held as under: “In the absence of any corroborative evidence, statement obtained from 23 mining licensees out of 994 licensees could not be relied upon by the A.O to come to the conclusion that the assessee has received illegal money from all the applicants for granting mining licenses, further the assessee was not allowed to cross-…