CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd.

230 ITR 580Supreme Court of India1998#2739 most cited

What is CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee provides a prima facie probable explanation for a cash credit or unexplained entry, the onus shifts to the revenue to disprove it, and the assessee’s explanation cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Additionally, rejection of books of account under section 145(3) is not an absolute prerequisite for making additions under section 68.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. · 230 ITR 580 · Section 68 · Section 145(3) · onus of proof · unexplained cash credit · assessee's explanation · shifting of onus · rejection of books · prima facie probable explanation · mere surmises · disprove explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)(d)onus of proofpaper companyaudi alteram partemretracted statementcreditworthiness of the creditoradmission of additional evidenceaddition u/s 68addition under section 68section 251share application moneyaccommodation entry

Judgments citing CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…zra: AIR 1974 SC 171, Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner is on the person asserting it to be so. It has similarly been held in the case of CIT v/s Bedi & Co. (P) Ltd: 230 ITR 580 (SC). The principle of law thus is that the Assessing Officer cannot treat a transaction as bogus only on the basis of suspicion or surmise. The Assessing Officer has to bring tangible material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion or connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted m…

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 220/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…zra: AIR 1974 SC 171, Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner is on the person asserting it to be so. It has similarly been held in the case of CIT v/s Bedi & Co. (P) Ltd: 230 ITR 580 (SC). The principle of law thus is that the Assessing Officer cannot treat a transaction as bogus only on the basis of suspicion or surmise. The Assessing Officer has to bring tangible material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion or connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted m…

HEMANT KUMAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. KASTURI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3926/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, R. No. 316A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd., Gg-1/140A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aacck-7027-J

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Atul Puri, Chartered Accountant
Section 115BSection 139ASection 68

…count Not Rejected Whether Necessary? Para 12: It is not an absolute legal requirement to first reject the books under section 145(3) before making additions under section 68; section 68 operates independently if entries are unexplained (see CIT v Bedi and Co 230 ITR 580 SC; Raja & Co vs AO Baramulla ITAT Amritsar; Chowringhee Sales Bureau v CIT 87 ITR 537 SC). Rejection of books is required only where AO finds specific defects, but even if not rejected, unexplained cash credits appearing therein can be taxed if the explanation is unsatisfactory. VI. Application of Section 115BBE and Penalty Provisions Para 13: A…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…s count. Reference in this regard can be made the decisions in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 ITA NO.1722/Del/2011 (SC) and CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where primafacie the inference on facts is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the As…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…s count. Reference in this regard can be made the decisions in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 ITA NO.1722/Del/2011 (SC) and CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where primafacie the inference on facts is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the As…

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

…law that what is\napparent is real unless controverted. The onus lay upon the person, who alleges that\nwhat is apparent is not real. Kindly refer CIT (Central) v/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973)\n87 ITR 349 (SC), followed in CIT v/s Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC).\n3.2 Further it is well settled law that an evidence/explanation submitted by the assessee,\nit has to be objectively tested. A good proof cannot be converted into no proof.\nMoreover, discretion conferred upon the AO has to be exercised judiciously as held in\nCIT vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 0570 (SC).\nTherefore, the impugned ad…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.90/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–1(2), Nagpur v/s M/s. Fuel Co. Coal India Ltd. 926–A, Fulwani Palace ……………. Respondent Central Avenue, Despande Layout Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AAACF8231B Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 30/01/2025 Date of Order – 14/02/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impu…

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…o the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the primary onus which lay upon it. The identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction have been proved by the assessee. In CIT v. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC), the Hon 'ble Supreme Court held that where the explanation offered by the assessee as to the nature and source of credit is prima facie credible, it cannot be rejected on mere surmises. We, therefore, 32 delete the impugned addition of Rs. 1,83,00,000/-, Ground No, 6 and its sub- grounds are decided in favour of the assessee." 15. In our v…

DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 201/NAG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Benjwal, CIT DR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 201/Nag./2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dayal Agro Products Ltd. Dayal House, New Radhakisan Plots, Akola. ……………. Appellant PAN : AABCD2713R v/s Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Akola Range, Akola ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri K.P.Dewani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Benjwal, CIT DR. Date of Hearing – 09/07/2024 Date of Order – 16/07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned orde…

ITO, WARD- 22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SAIVI FINANCE PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s count. Reference in this regard can be made the decisions in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 ITA NO.1722/Del/2011 (SC) and CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the A…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…im of the Assessee by establishing that the evidence filed by the assessee was false and by bringing new material on record and failure to do so would vitiate the addition made on this count. g. It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima-facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary ruling are as under:-  Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.)  CIT v. Ori…

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 433/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra Addl. CITa
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…led law that what is apparent is real unless controverted. The onus lay upon the person, who alleges that what is apparent is not real. Kindly refer CIT (Central) v/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), followed in CIT v/s Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC). In the present case, the AO has proceeded on mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures. No contrary evidenceis on brought on record to show/ disprove the vital fact and contention that the Assessee did and that sufficient cash was available with it and thus, failed to show that what is apparent was not real. In any case, the AO could not dis…

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ion or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. [Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Sri Krishna v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All), Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 {Bom.). CIT vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (198) 230 ITR 580 (SC). The affidavits filed cannot be rejected outright without cross examination A finding given by the appellate Tribunal without considering the affidavit concerning a material evidence may not be sustainable at law even though the Tribunal had considered other material on record. This is so because an affidavit is a valid piece of evidence (Ha…

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…ITA No. 1270/KOL/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1270/KOL/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [PAN: AAACG9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee…

PCIT-07, DELHI vs. M/S WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.

ITA - 135 / 2023HC Delhi07 Mar 2023
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…conclusion that the assessee has discharged the primary onus which lay upon it. The identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction have been proved by the assessee. In CIT vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC), the Hon 'ble Supreme Court held that where the explanation offered by the assessee as to the nature and source of credit is prima facie credible, it cannot be rejected on mere surmises. We, therefore, delete the impugned addition of Rs.1,83,00,000/-, Ground No, 6 and its sub-grounds are decided in favour of the assessee. [Emphasis is…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…in books of accounts could be identified during whole assessment proceedings. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “All that matters is that the explanation is prima facie reasonable, if it is so, it cannot be rejected on mere surmises.” CIT V. Bedi & Co. Pvt Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC). SC further held ITA Nos. 5231, 5392 & 5579/Del/2011 48 Majestic Properties that ‘ realities of life and probabilities of life have to be taken care of while dealing with the fiscal laws.” CIT V. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 358 (SC).” Finding on Ground of Appeal No 5 In Ground of Anneal No.5 the appellant has contested the calculation of co…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…in books of accounts could be identified during whole assessment proceedings. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “All that matters is that the explanation is prima facie reasonable, if it is so, it cannot be rejected on mere surmises.” CIT V. Bedi & Co. Pvt Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC). SC further held ITA Nos. 5231, 5392 & 5579/Del/2011 48 Majestic Properties that ‘ realities of life and probabilities of life have to be taken care of while dealing with the fiscal laws.” CIT V. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 358 (SC).” Finding on Ground of Appeal No 5 In Ground of Anneal No.5 the appellant has contested the calculation of co…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…in books of accounts could be identified during whole assessment proceedings. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “All that matters is that the explanation is prima facie reasonable, if it is so, it cannot be rejected on mere surmises.” CIT V. Bedi & Co. Pvt Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC). SC further held ITA Nos. 5231, 5392 & 5579/Del/2011 48 Majestic Properties that ‘ realities of life and probabilities of life have to be taken care of while dealing with the fiscal laws.” CIT V. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 358 (SC).” Finding on Ground of Appeal No 5 In Ground of Anneal No.5 the appellant has contested the calculation of co…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR, KANPUR vs. SHRI MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…s count. Reference in this regard can be made the decisions in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 ITA NO.1722/Del/2011 (SC) and CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima- facie the inference on facts is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the…

SHRI ANAND KISHORE BAGREE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 4(4), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

…nothing on record. ii) AO violated the principles of natural justice. Reliance on: - Case laws referred to in the last para on PN 6 of PB (5 Cases). 12. Apparent to be considered to be real unless proved otherwise. Reliance on CIT vs Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC). 13. If any of the reports had specific reference of assessee, AO would have referred to it. AO did not conduct any enquiry either from SEBI or from the concerned broker. 14. Assessee regular investor in shares. Holding as on 15.03.2010 at PN 10 & 11 of PB. 15. Addition made on the basis of general observations. Nothing specific against the…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3