CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

141 ITR 67High Court1983#370 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for additions of cash credits found solely in a bank passbook, as a passbook maintained by the bank is not considered a 'book of the assessee' for the purpose of this section, especially when the assessee does not maintain their own books of account.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi · 141 ITR 67 · section 68 · unexplained cash credit · bank passbook · books of account · assessee's books · applicability of Section 68 · no books of account · cash credit in bank account

Also reported as

11 Taxmann 5919 SOT 460

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 115BBESection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 2(12a)addition under section 68addition u/s 68unexplained cash creditsection 68change of opinionsection 131genuineness of the transactionsection 145limited scrutinyagricultural incomesection 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

Ken Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 4, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 894@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ Ken Financial Services Ltd. 101, Shah Arcade, A Wing, Shah Archade Sra Chs Ltd Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E) Mumbai-400 097 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaack4929K Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Byomakesh P. K. Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…which means for the previous year 2008-09, in terms of the definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the exp…

Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru

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

ITA 840/BANG/2022[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…ITA No.840/Bang/2022 Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 Mr. P. Narasimha Rao Shivaprasad Nagakannika Temple Road Deputy Commissioner of Derebail Konchadi Vs. Income-tax Mangaluru 575 006 Circle-1(1) & TPS Mangaluru PAN NO : AFLPR1035C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT ME…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…Act illegal and bad in law since provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. Reliance is being placed on a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY SOURCE : (1983) 141 ITR 67 (BOM) : (1982) 11 TAXMAN 59 b) SUNDAR LAL JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE : (1979) 117ITR316 (ALL) c) ANAND RAM RAITANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF GAUHAT (1997) 139 CTR (Gau) 235 : (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gau) d) SHERATON APPARELS vs.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX* HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (2002) 1…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…Act illegal and bad in law since provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. Reliance is being placed on a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY SOURCE : (1983) 141 ITR 67 (BOM) : (1982) 11 TAXMAN 59 b) SUNDAR LAL JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE : (1979) 117ITR316 (ALL) c) ANAND RAM RAITANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF GAUHAT (1997) 139 CTR (Gau) 235 : (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gau) d) SHERATON APPARELS vs.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX* HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (2002) 1…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…Act illegal and bad in law since provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. Reliance is being placed on a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY SOURCE : (1983) 141 ITR 67 (BOM) : (1982) 11 TAXMAN 59 b) SUNDAR LAL JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE : (1979) 117ITR316 (ALL) c) ANAND RAM RAITANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF GAUHAT (1997) 139 CTR (Gau) 235 : (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gau) d) SHERATON APPARELS vs.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX* HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (2002) 1…

Mukesh Goyal, Gangapurcity vs. ITO, Sawai Madhopur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 68Section 69

…sources. Since the assessee did not have any business income, he need not to maintain books of accounts, therefore, section 68/69 cannot be invoked. Appellant relied on the decision given by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in taken in CIT vs Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67.  Offers no explanation- Assessee has given proper explanation that impugned amount was deposited out of his brought forwarded cash balance Rs. 5,71,605/- from the preceding year ended on 31.3.2012 and current year's income, therefore, it cannot be said that it is un-explained.  Formation of opinion for invoking section 68-Ld. A.O has not mentio…

Charanjeet Singh Garcha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 14/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Charanjeet Singh Garcha Behind G.T Tower, Vip Road, Puraina, Chhatisgarh-492 001 Pan : Ahgpg3736N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…s.17 lac (supra) made by the A.O u/s.68 of the Act was even otherwise principally not maintainable. In support of his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) (HC) and also that of the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 164 ITR 296 ( Mumbai-Trib). 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. However, the Ld. DR on being specifically queried about the basis of making the impugned addition of Rs…

Harjindar Singh Bal, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 57/RPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 57/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Ward- No.29, Hospital Colony, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Adepb7178F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ananjay Kumar Tiwary, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 68

…tified by the order of a division bench of the ITAT, Jalandhar in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. ITO (2019) 198 TTJ 114 (Asr), wherein, after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) and referring to an earlier order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), the tribunal had held as under: "8. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material produced before us. We will first deal with the obj…

Smt. Archana Chandak, Indore vs. ITO 3(2), Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

ITA 983/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 20.09.2022
Section 143(3)Section 68

…arises. Thus, in view of the above, the entire addition of Ks. 27,57,710/- u/s. 68 of the Act is liable to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the fat lowing: 1. The decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Bom.}] wherein it was held as under:.. 2. The decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal m the case of Smt. ManasiMahendraPitkar vs. ITO [2016I 73 taxmann.com 63 (Mumbai - Trib.} wherein it has held as under:.. 3. The decision of Hon’bleLucknow Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri Kamal Kanvar Mishra (2013)[ITA No.398/LKW/2012 wherein it was held as und…

Shantibhai H Jogani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 91/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.91/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Shantibhai H Jogani, Income Tax Officer, 4, 2Nd Floor, Old Shakati Vijay Ward-3(3)(4), Surat Vs Society, Varachha Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Surat-395006 Near Majura Gate, Pan : Aglpj 7542 D Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…f his submiss, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Babbal Bhatia vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0566 Delhi-Trib and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1982) 11 Taman 59 (Bom)/(1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom). 10 Sh. Shantibhai H Jogani 11. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that in the return of income for preceding assessment year i.e. 2013-14, the assessee has shown cash-in-hand at zero. Further, the assessee has shown sundry creditor, sundry debtor and…

Kalpesh Ratilal Gardharia, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward- 2(3), Kolhapur

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1850/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 152Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1850/PUN/2019 : A.Y. 2010-11 Kalpesh R. Gardharia, Plot No. 17m 1183E Takala, Rajratna Apartment, Karveer KOLHAPUR – 416 008 PAN: AJFPG 7760 H :Appellant Vs. The I.T.O. Ward 2(3) Kolhapur :Respondent Appellant by : Shri S.N. Puranik Respondent by : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date of Hearing : 17-10-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19-10-2022 ORDER This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from order of the learned CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur, dated 05-01-2018 for assessment year 2…

Hemendra Banjare, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 112/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.112/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hemendra Banjare 53/B Hscl Colony, Ruabandha Sector, Civic Centre, Bhilai (C.G.)-490006. Pan : Ajgpb7555A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69A

…nd was liable to be struck down on the 5 Hemendra Banjare Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4) said count itself. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul M. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mum.). Alternatively, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that both the lower authorities had failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective and had wrongly made/sustained the addition of Rs.55.58 lacs in the hands of the assessee. 8. Per contra, the…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Keepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 4285/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…which means for the previous year 2008-09, in terms of the definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak…

ACIT Cir-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…which means for the previous year 2008-09, in terms of the definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…which means for the previous year 2008-09, in terms of the definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak…

Shaukatali Tajumal Husain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 242/SRT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…hrough ATM, there is no facility in banking system to issue multiple number of ATM cards of a single account holder. On the decision relied upon by the assesse in case of Om Prakash Sharma in ITA No. 2256/Del/2009 and the Bhaichand H Gandhi, Bombay High Court 141 ITR 67 (Bom), the Assessing Officer held that the facts of the said cases have no relevancy with the facts of the present case. The income of assessee as declared in return of income of Rs. 1,49,040/- was reduced from cash credit and thereby addition of Rs. 37,00,286/- was made. 9. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was upheld in an ex parte p…

Shaukatali Tajumal Hussain, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 3(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/SRT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…hrough ATM, there is no facility in banking system to issue multiple number of ATM cards of a single account holder. On the decision relied upon by the assesse in case of Om Prakash Sharma in ITA No. 2256/Del/2009 and the Bhaichand H Gandhi, Bombay High Court 141 ITR 67 (Bom), the Assessing Officer held that the facts of the said cases have no relevancy with the facts of the present case. The income of assessee as declared in return of income of Rs. 1,49,040/- was reduced from cash credit and thereby addition of Rs. 37,00,286/- was made. 9. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was upheld in an ex parte p…

Naresh Batra, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 281/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, By The Impugned Order, The Appeal Was Dismissed.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…isions of section 68 of the Act. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati [2011] 338 ITR 563 (Delhi High Court); • Baladin ram vs. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (Supreme Court); • CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay High Court); • Sh. Om Prakash vs. ITO, ITA No.1325/Del/2011, Date of decision: 11.08.2016 (Delhi – Trib.); • Amitabh Bansal vs. ITO [2019] 175 ITD 401 (Delhi – Trib.); & • Dr. Vishan Swqaroop Gupta, vs. ITO, ITA No. 13/JP/2020, Date of decision: 28.01.2021. 6. Without prejudice, he submitted, assessee is running a cyber cafe. He submitted,…

Rakyan Beverages Private Limited, Raigarh vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane (DR)
Section 68

…09, in terms of the 19 A.Y. 2018-19 Raw Pressery Pvt. Ltd. definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the exp…

ITO 7(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5873/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 7(3)(4) V. M/S. Prabhadevi Properties & Trading Company Ltd., Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, Room No. 805 “The Peregrine” 400 Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacp4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Atul Suraiya Department By : Shri Jagdish Jangid

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…- was credited in the books of the Assessee in the earlier year and not in the assessment year 2012-13, the provision of section 68 is not attracted. The issue is settled by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Bhaichand N Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom), wherein the High Court has categorically held that the provision of section 68 can be attracted only in the year in which the amount is credited and not in a later year. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the cases of ITO VS. Nasir Khan j. Mahadik (143 ITD 166) and Rita Stephen Pinto Vs. ITO (ITA no. 1219/Mum/2013). Therefore, t…