Chain Sukh Rathi v. CIT

270 ITR 368Reported decision2004#20238 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2018.

Judgments citing Chain Sukh Rathi v. CIT

Shri Vinod Kumar Dhanja, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the additions of Rs 1

ITA 514/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: This Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri K. C. Meena (Addl. CIT)

…e ld DR that even during the remand proceedings, the assessee has not been able to discharge the onus regarding genuineness and creditworthiness of the donors. Accordingly, following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shri Chainsukh Rathi 270 ITR 368, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer has rightly been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and the said order should be sustained ITA No. 514-JP-2018 Vinod Kumar Dhanja, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ajmer 7. Heard both the parties and persued the material available on record. Firstly, the identity of the donors, being the family members of the assessee, is…

Binnaifer Kohli, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 4334/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Income Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Abwpn5134E (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi Ms.Keyuri Desai प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri N P Singh सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 7.2.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 24. 2.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: The Appeal Bearing Ita No.3832/Mum/2012 Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.2.2012 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 39, Mumbai & The Appeal Bearing Ita No.4334/Mum/2014 Is Also Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 3.3.2014 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Against The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)( C ) Of The Act. Both The Appeals Pertain To The Assessment Year 2004-05. Since These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Issue Raised In The First Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.23,78,000/- As Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Assessment Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 153A Of The Act Even Though There Was No Incriminating Material Or Evidence For Doubting The Genuineness Of The Gift Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N P Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 68

…placed reliance on the order dated 19-3-2013 passed by the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Satish L Babladi in ITA No.1732 & 2109/Mum/2010 and also the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan rendered in the case of Chain Sukh Rathi Vs. CIT (270 ITR 368) and submitted that the proceedings initiated u/s 153A was valid and the AO was justified in making the addition relating to the gift. 6. The ld A.R, however, placed reliance on the following decisions to support his legal proposition that the concluded assessments should not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material:- (a) CIT Vs.…

Binnaifer Kohli, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 3832/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Income Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Abwpn5134E (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi Ms.Keyuri Desai प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri N P Singh सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 7.2.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 24. 2.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: The Appeal Bearing Ita No.3832/Mum/2012 Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.2.2012 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 39, Mumbai & The Appeal Bearing Ita No.4334/Mum/2014 Is Also Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 3.3.2014 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Against The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)( C ) Of The Act. Both The Appeals Pertain To The Assessment Year 2004-05. Since These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Issue Raised In The First Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.23,78,000/- As Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Assessment Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 153A Of The Act Even Though There Was No Incriminating Material Or Evidence For Doubting The Genuineness Of The Gift Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N P Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 68

…placed reliance on the order dated 19-3-2013 passed by the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Satish L Babladi in ITA No.1732 & 2109/Mum/2010 and also the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan rendered in the case of Chain Sukh Rathi Vs. CIT (270 ITR 368) and submitted that the proceedings initiated u/s 153A was valid and the AO was justified in making the addition relating to the gift. 6. The ld A.R, however, placed reliance on the following decisions to support his legal proposition that the concluded assessments should not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material:- (a) CIT Vs.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mahaveer Enterprises [I] Ltd

ITTA/165/2008HC Telangana02 Feb 2012
Section 143(3)Section 158B

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 165 / 2008 Late Sh Shiv Shankar Khandelwal through his legal heir Smt. Usha Rani W/o Late Shri Shiv Shankar Khandelwal R/o Kumher, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- III Jaipur. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Alwar, Bharatpur. ----…

Chain Sukh Rathi v. CIT (270 ITR 368) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax