How many judgments cite Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO?

71 judgments on BharatTax cite Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO (8 DTR 199), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 133(6), Section 131.

Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO

8 DTR 199High Court2008#1599 most cited

What is Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO authority for?

An assessee discharges their onus under Section 68 for cash credits by proving the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditor's creditworthiness. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the creditor's funds ('source of source'), unless evidence suggests the money originated from the assessee itself.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Aravali Trading Co v ITO · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained cash credit · assessee's onus · burden of proof · identity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · banking channels

Also reported as

187 Taxmann 33820 Taxmann.com 441

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 133(6)Section 131 Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor addition u/s 68 admission of additional evidence genuineness of the transaction share application money sundry creditors rule 46a change of opinion unexplained cash credit section 131 section 68

Judgments citing Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO

Alwar General Finance Co. (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

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

ITA 332/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel, JCIT) a

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 332/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 M/s. Alwar General Finance Co. (P) Ltd. cuke The ACIT Vs. 148, Alka Puri, Kali Mori Phatak Circle-1 Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 4988P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Raipur vs. M/S Super Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd., Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 261/RPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.261/RPR/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) ACIT-4(1), Raipur Vs M/s Super Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, VIP Road, Raipur(C.G.) PAN No. : AAICS 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) AND Cross Objection No.13/RPR/2017 (Arising out of ITA No.261/RPR/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/s Super Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACI…

Noble Tradelink Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Ward 1(5), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 302/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 68

…er dated 8-12-2020 (Mum-Trib) 4. Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs ITA No. 3302/Mum/2019 order dated 24-01-2022 (Mum. Trib) 5. Pr.CIT, Udaipur vs Shubh Mines Pvt. Ltd. (DBITA No. 96/15 order dated 03-05-2016 (Raj-HC) 6. Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj-HC) 7 Kanhaialal Jangid vs ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (Raj-HC) 8. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) In the end, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 80 lacs should be deleted. 4.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. To this effect,…

Shri Madan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 873/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54BSection 68

…o advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained.” 2.2.2 In Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj) (DPB 7- 13)held that: “Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the appellant, the appellant’s onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the sources from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him and, therefore the add…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained.” 3.2.2 In Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj) held that: “Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the appellant, the appellant’s onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the sources from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him and, therefore the addition u/s 68…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained.” 3.2.2 In Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj) held that: 14 Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., “Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the appellant, the appellant’s onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the sources from which the creditors could have acquired the…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

Shri Kirodi Mal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 883/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Javed Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘SMC’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 883/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2009-10 cuke Sh. Kirodi Mal ITO Vs. S/o Sh. Prabhati Ward-1(1), R/o- Village- Dalalpur, Post- Alwar Shahpur, Distt.- Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BGLPM 4153 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Javed Khan, Adv. jktLo dh vksj…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

For Appellant: Shri Karan shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…n.com 524 (Punjab & Haryana) xi) CIT vs. JaiKumarBakliwal[2014]366ITR217[Rajshthan-HC] xii) CIT vs. Shalimar Buildwell P. L [2014] 220 Taxman 138 [Allahbad-HC] xiii) Labh Chandra Bohra vs. ITO [2014] 219 CTR 571 [Rajasthan-HC] xiv) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) xv) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) xvi) In Gem Palace vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 543 (Raj.) xvii) CIT vs. P.Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) xviii) Rollon Containers vs ITO, Hyderabad [2012] xix) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LALIT KUMAR PODDAR (2015) 56 taxmann.com 462/231 Taxman 816 (Delhi) In view of the aforesaid…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…o advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained." 4.2.2 In Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj) dated 25.01.2007 (DPB) held that: "Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the appellant, the appellant's onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the sources from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him and, there…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…o advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained." 4.2.2 In Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj) dated 25.01.2007 (DPB) held that: "Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the appellant, the appellant's onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the sources from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him and, there…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…nt. In support of the same the appellant firm has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Orient Trading Company Ltd. v/s. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) ii) Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Dhanlaxmi Equipment Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 189/2016 iii} Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) viiij High Court of Madras In S. Hastimal (1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) iv) Gujarat High Court in the ease of DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 (TR 360 (Guj.) v] Gujarat High Court In the ease of CIT vs. RanchhodJivabhai Nakrmva (Tax Appeal No.50of2011) vi) CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.)Ltd.[20l4j 42 Taxman.com 473 [Gujarat-HC] Vii) CIT vs. Dharmade…

Shri Bharat Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1138/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Bharat Kumar Agarwal cuke The ITO Vs. Prop: M/s. Bharat Exports Ward 4(4) C-33, Near TPS, Ambabari, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACOPA 5820 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, CA jktLo…

M/S. Mahalaxmi Saws Pvt. Ltd., H-39, Road No.2B, Riico Industrial Area, Sirsi Road, Bindayaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 280/JP/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Mahalaxmi Saws Pvt. Ltd., cuke I.T.O., Vs. H-39, Road No. 2B, RIICO Industrial Ward 4(2), Area, Sirsi Road, Bindayaka, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN No.: AAECM 4744 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT…

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…o advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained.” 3.2.2 In Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj) (DPB 5-9) held that: “Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the appellant, the appellant’s onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the sources from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him and, therefore the addi…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…(Nag), iii. Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). 13 ITA 173/JP/2019 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO iv. Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) v. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (RAJ.), (217 CTR 354) vi. Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO 8 DTR 199 vii. CIT V/S Abdul Aziz 72 DTR 216(Chhattisgarh) viii. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. ARL Infratech, Ltd., (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 24/2014) decided on 28.09.2016 (Raj.) ix. Muralidhar Lahoriaml v/s CIT 280 ITR 512(Guj.) With regard to reopening of the case, the ld. AR has submitted that the reasons recorded itself was wrong, incorrect an…

Manju Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 8275/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Manju Sharma, Vs Ito, Wz-43B, Meenakshi Garden, Ward-45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aatps2170A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishnan Sampath, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Proprietor Of M/S Eastern Galaxy Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Export Of Handicrafts & Decorative Items. She Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.47,10,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass With The Reason That There Is “Large Increase In Sundry Creditors With Respect To Turnover As Compared To Preceding Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Krishnan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manju Sharma, Vs ITO, WZ-43B, Meenakshi Garden, Ward-45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AATPS2170A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Krishnan Sampath, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 20…

Smt. Meera Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 256/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Meera Devi, I.T.O., Vs. 772, Sindhi Colony, Raja Ward 6(1), Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afnpd 6394 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Fca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :11/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…s are not genuine. 1.5 SOURCE OF SOURCE NEED NOT BE PROVED. The issue under consideration in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s Aravali Trading Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported at (2008) 8 DTR 199, wherein it was held that once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the assessee, the assessee’s onus stands discharged and the latter is not further required to proves the source from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him either in terms of section…

Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-1, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 584/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 584/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Vijay Kumar, The ITO, Vs. 300, Gurunanak Pura, Ward-4(1), Raja Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BOIPK 0889 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss Chanchal Meena…

Sh. Barat Pal Sood, Phagwara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Phagwara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 11/ASR/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR

Section 143(3)

…establish source of source. The addition in respect of the entries in the names of the creditor thus could not be sustained. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 94 to 97 [please see page no. 94]. In the case of Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO reported at 8 DTR 199 it has been held by the Rajasthan High Court that one the existence of the credit has been proved and such person owns the credits, the assessee's onus stands discharged and the later is not further required to prove the source from which the creditor could have acquired the money deposited with him. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 98…