Bela Juneja v. CIT

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

…s of account, then section 69 &69A is not applicable. The relevant cases on the above mentioned points are: relevant cases on the above mentioned points are: 1. Vasanthi visweswaran 257 ITR 94 (Mad) Vasanthi visweswaran 257 ITR 94 (Mad) 2. Surendra M.Khandhar 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) Surendra M.Khandhar 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) 3. Jagjit Pal Singh Anand 320 ITR 106 (Del.) jit Pal Singh Anand 320 ITR 106 (Del.) 4. Chuharmal 172 ITR 250(SC) Chuharmal 172 ITR 250(SC) 7.7. In view of the above facts and position of law, the addition 7.7. In view of the above facts and position of law, the addition 7.7. In view of the above facts…

DHARMESH D. BHAVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…“on money” of Rs. 47,00,000/- for the purchase of the property. The ld. D.R in order to support his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom). The ld. D.R relying on the said judgment submitted that it was held by the Honble High Court that as the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the A.O under Sec 292C, therefore, the addition under Sec. 69 on the basis of the document seized from the possession of assessee was rightly made by AO and sustained by the Tribunal…

SHARDABEN BHAVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No. 4754 & 4755/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08) Mrs. Shardaben Bhavani, Office Ito-32(3)(4) बिधम/ No. 2, Laxmi Nivas No. 5, Mumbai. Chandavarkar, Borivali West, Vs. Mumbai-400 092. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aajpb9774D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…ived “on money” of Rs. 54,20,000/- on the sale of the property. The ld. D.R in order to support his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom). The ld. D.R relying on the said judgment submitted that it was held by the Hon‟ble High Court that as the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the A.O under Sec 292C, therefore, the addition under Sec. 69 on the basis of the document seized from the possession of assessee was rightly made by AO and sustained by the Tribuna…

DEVRAM C. BHAVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Devaram C. Bhavani, Office No. 2, Ito-25(1)(4), बिधम/ Laxmi Nivas No. 5, Chandavarkar, Mumbai. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092. Vs.

…“on money” of Rs. 47,00,000/- for the purchase of the property. The ld. D.R in order to support his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom). The ld. D.R relying on the said judgment submitted that it was held by the Hon‟ble High Court that as the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the A.O under Sec 292C, therefore, the addition under Sec. 69 on the basis of the document seized from the possession of assessee was rightly made by AO and sustained by the Tribuna…

OMPRAKASH BASANTLAL GOENKA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.1920/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Mr. Omprakash Basnatlal Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Goenka, 317/318, Parvati Mumbai-400002 Industrial Estate, Sunmill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-13 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AECPG 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hiro Rai याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Deepkant Prasad सुनवाई की तायीख / Dat…

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

…e interest transactions are by cheque, so that the same could not be added. 83. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Apart from being saved by the statutory presumption of section 292C (also refer: Surendra M. Khandhar v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom), the assessee’s explanation is self- contradictory – stating the transactions as not representing actual transactions, but only rough notings, it questions the addition/s qua interest transactions (Rs.1.95 lacs) on the ground that these are by cheque, implying that these are actual transactions of (receipt of) interest. Could it be that a p…

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

…e interest transactions are by cheque, so that the same could not be added. 83. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Apart from being saved by the statutory presumption of section 292C (also refer: Surendra M. Khandhar v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom), the assessee’s explanation is self- contradictory – stating the transactions as not representing actual transactions, but only rough notings, it questions the addition/s qua interest transactions (Rs.1.95 lacs) on the ground that these are by cheque, implying that these are actual transactions of (receipt of) interest. Could it be that a p…

HASSAN ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

…e corroborative. The same thus have strong evidentiary value, quite apart from s. 292C, which shall apply to all the documents found in search, so that their contents, unless shown otherwise, are to be regarded as true (ref: Surendra M. Khandhar v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom)). The beneficiary is clearly specified, confirmed by the Revenue as an existing person, with complete bank particulars, again, found as correct. That, therefore, there is an account/s, even if unspecified, with reference to which the transfer instruction was issued by the assessee, is the only reasonable inference that emanates in the facts…

RITESH HASMUKHLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7360/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ritesh Hasmukhlal Jain Ito, Ward 14(1)(4), बनाम/ 93/115, 2Nd Floor, Raut Estate, 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, Koliwada, Fanaswadi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8427 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Vaishnav ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav

…assessee’s explanation, is confirmed for addition u/s. 69A in terms of clear mandate of law, toward which the AO has in fact relied on the decisions in Surendra M. Khandhar (supra), since confirmed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (reported at [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom)), and Vijay Agricultural Industries (supra). I decide accordingly, and the assessee gets part relief. 7 Ritesh Hasmukhlal Jain vs. ITO 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. प"रणामतः "नधा"रती क" अपील आं"शक "वीकृत क" जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on January 29, 2016 (Sanjay Arora) लेखा सद"य / Accountant M…