What is CIT v. Anil Kumar authority for?

When there is nothing on record to establish the financial capacity, creditworthiness, or relationship of a donor with the assessee, an addition to income can be justified.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Anil Kumar?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Anil Kumar (392 ITR 552), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Anil Kumar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(2), Section 14A, Section 1961, Section 2015, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(vii) proviso.

CIT v. Anil Kumar (392 ITR 552)

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

…condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.)  DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited: ITA Nos. 814/Del./2011 (Del)  PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (De…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

…condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.)  DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited: ITA Nos. 814/Del./2011 (Del)  PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (De…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

…condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.)  DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited: ITA Nos. 814/Del./2011 (Del)  PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (De…

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 111/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 110/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 109/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 108/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 107/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 106/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 105/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. CARISSA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 14A

…e assessee has suo moto disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- towards the expenses incurred for earning the exempt income. 5. Placing reliance on the following judgments,  CIT vs. GKK Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. (392 ITR 196) (Del.)  PCIT vs. U. K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. (392 ITR 552) (Del.) 6. We hold that the disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of exempt income claimed of Rs.9,83,504/- is fair and sufficient. The order of the ld. CIT(A) on this ground is affirmed. Bad Debts: 7. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the appellant had debited a sum of Rs.18,59,19,735/- by…

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…n 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) 32 - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) Even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses…

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…TR 640 iv. CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) v. PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.:[2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) vi. H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) vii. Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) viii. PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) x. CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) xi. Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) xii. CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 42. It was further submitted that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expendit…

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…rt in 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 40.0.2 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that even otherwise, there is no ne…

ANAMICA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8203/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 4

…by the assessee u/s. 14A is not correct, no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A. 10. He also relied on the following decisions :- 1. Vedanta Ltd. [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Del) 2. H. T Media Ld. [ 2018] 399 ITR 576 (Del) 3. U. K. Paints ( India) (P) Ltd. [ 2017] 392 ITR 552 (Del) 11. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has determined the disallowance u/s.14 A read with Rule 8 D of the IT Rules 1962 at Rs. 12,35,075/- which is as under :- Particulars Amount ( Rs.) Rule 8 D (2) (i) - expenses directly attributable Nil Rule 8 D (2) (ii) – interest expenses 8,12,707 R…

SUDHIR JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1741/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…led to establish that donor had means and gift was genuine and was given out of natural love and affection, amount received as gift was correctly to be added to income of assessee 4. CIT Vs Anil Kumar Delhi High Court 2007 [2008] 167 Taxman 143 (Delhi)/[2007] 292 ITR 552 (Delhi) Assessee had received two gifts of certain amount from NRE accounts of two donors. However, assessee had not placed on record anything to show as to what was financial capacity of donors, what was creditworthiness of donors, what kind of relationship donors had with assessee, what were sources of funds gifted to assessee and whether dono…

DAYA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1740/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…led to establish that donor had means and gift was genuine and was given out of natural love and affection, amount received as gift was correctly to be added to income of assessee 4. CIT Vs Anil Kumar Delhi High Court 2007 [2008] 167 Taxman 143 (Delhi)/[2007] 292 ITR 552 (Delhi) Assessee had received two gifts of certain amount from NRE accounts of two donors. However, assessee had not placed on record anything to show as to what was financial capacity of donors, what was creditworthiness of donors, what kind of relationship donors had with assessee, what were sources of funds gifted to assessee and whether dono…

SUSHMA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…led to establish that donor had means and gift was genuine and was given out of natural love and affection, amount received as gift was correctly to be added to income of assessee 4. CIT Vs Anil Kumar Delhi High Court 2007 [2008] 167 Taxman 143 (Delhi)/[2007] 292 ITR 552 (Delhi) Assessee had received two gifts of certain amount from NRE accounts of two donors. However, assessee had not placed on record anything to show as to what was financial capacity of donors, what was creditworthiness of donors, what kind of relationship donors had with assessee, what were sources of funds gifted to assessee and whether dono…

MEENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1738/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…led to establish that donor had means and gift was genuine and was given out of natural love and affection, amount received as gift was correctly to be added to income of assessee 4. CIT Vs Anil Kumar Delhi High Court 2007 [2008] 167 Taxman 143 (Delhi)/[2007] 292 ITR 552 (Delhi) Assessee had received two gifts of certain amount from NRE accounts of two donors. However, assessee had not placed on record anything to show as to what was financial capacity of donors, what was creditworthiness of donors, what kind of relationship donors had with assessee, what were sources of funds gifted to assessee and whether dono…

M/S MINDA INVESTMENT LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 510/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shrik.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…out as to how such interest cost is attributable to the earning of the exempt income. 6. It is argued by the Ld. AR that in view of several decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, and to name a few, in the cases of UK Paints (India) (P) Ltd (2017) 392 ITR 552 (Delhi),Tariksha Engineering India Ltd (2015) 54 taxmann.com 109 (Delhi), HT Media Ltd vs. PCIT 399 ITR 576-Delhi, India Bulls Financial Services Ltd vs DCIT 395 ITR 242-Delhi etc., the Assessing Officer, in the first instance, must examine the disallowance made by the assessee or the claim of the assessee that only a particular amount was incurr…

CIT v. Anil Kumar

What is CIT v. Anil Kumar authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Anil Kumar

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. CARISSA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., DELHI

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

ANAMICA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

SUDHIR JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

DAYA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

SUSHMA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

MEENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

M/S MINDA INVESTMENT LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI