CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349Supreme Court of India1973#124 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull · 87 ITR 349 · Section 68 · Section 69A · onus of proof · burden of proof · apparent is not real · genuineness of transaction · cash credit · unexplained money · suspicion not evidence · sufficiency of evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69CSection 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementdumb documentscreditworthiness of the creditorbogus long term capital gainsection 132(4a)section 292csection 132(4)loose papersaddition under section 68section 10(38)section 127on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 925/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 597/ 2012) (D…

Bipin Agarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 924/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 597/ 2012) (D…

Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 597/ 2012) (D…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 237/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…jected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raisin…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 236/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…jected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raisin…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1336/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…jected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raisin…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 621/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…jected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raisin…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 620/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…jected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raisin…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…jected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raisin…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 618/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…jected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raisin…

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an…

Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT-CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee Smt

ITA 76/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 132Section 153C

…the AO has mentioned in para 4.4 of the order that as per the sale deed, the house was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 68 lacs and not for Rs. 83 lacs. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Rawat Mal vs. CIT 87 ITR 349, the Ld. counsel submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the said case, when the documentary evidence is pitted against oral evidence then the documentary evidence would prevail. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per the settled law the statement recorded during search has no evidentiary value unless it is corroborated by the other ev…

Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT-CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee Smt

ITA 75/CHANDI/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 132Section 153C

…the AO has mentioned in para 4.4 of the order that as per the sale deed, the house was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 68 lacs and not for Rs. 83 lacs. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Rawat Mal vs. CIT 87 ITR 349, the Ld. counsel submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the said case, when the documentary evidence is pitted against oral evidence then the documentary evidence would prevail. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per the settled law the statement recorded during search has no evidentiary value unless it is corroborated by the other ev…

Smt. Jatinder Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT-CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee Smt

ITA 71/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 132Section 153C

…the AO has mentioned in para 4.4 of the order that as per the sale deed, the house was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 68 lacs and not for Rs. 83 lacs. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Rawat Mal vs. CIT 87 ITR 349, the Ld. counsel submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the said case, when the documentary evidence is pitted against oral evidence then the documentary evidence would prevail. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per the settled law the statement recorded during search has no evidentiary value unless it is corroborated by the other ev…

ITO, Ward- 25(2), New Delhi vs. Telespice Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4661/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4661/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4520/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4521/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs Telespice Wireless Pvt. Ltd., Ward-25(2), A-4, Hiramal Apartments, 44, New Delhi-110002 Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8354P Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

…e in deleting the addition of Rs.127,31,43,600/- made by the AO on account of interest free loans amounting Rs. 14,14,60,40,000/- given to various parties by merely relying on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mall 1973 87 ITR 349 without appreciating the facts of present case as in ITA No. 562 of 2008 dated 01.06.2012 in VIT V. Sungero Ltd., the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after discussing the aforesaid decision of Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (supra), Opined that the “order must be read as a whole to see whether test of perversity is satisfied.” 4. Heard the arguments of both t…

ITO, Ward- 25(2), New Delhi vs. Telespice Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4521/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4661/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4520/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4521/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs Telespice Wireless Pvt. Ltd., Ward-25(2), A-4, Hiramal Apartments, 44, New Delhi-110002 Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8354P Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

…e in deleting the addition of Rs.127,31,43,600/- made by the AO on account of interest free loans amounting Rs. 14,14,60,40,000/- given to various parties by merely relying on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mall 1973 87 ITR 349 without appreciating the facts of present case as in ITA No. 562 of 2008 dated 01.06.2012 in VIT V. Sungero Ltd., the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after discussing the aforesaid decision of Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (supra), Opined that the “order must be read as a whole to see whether test of perversity is satisfied.” 4. Heard the arguments of both t…

ITO, Ward- 25(2), New Delhi vs. Telespice Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4520/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4661/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4520/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4521/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs Telespice Wireless Pvt. Ltd., Ward-25(2), A-4, Hiramal Apartments, 44, New Delhi-110002 Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8354P Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

…e in deleting the addition of Rs.127,31,43,600/- made by the AO on account of interest free loans amounting Rs. 14,14,60,40,000/- given to various parties by merely relying on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mall 1973 87 ITR 349 without appreciating the facts of present case as in ITA No. 562 of 2008 dated 01.06.2012 in VIT V. Sungero Ltd., the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after discussing the aforesaid decision of Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (supra), Opined that the “order must be read as a whole to see whether test of perversity is satisfied.” 4. Heard the arguments of both t…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del),CIT vs Creative World Telefilm Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom), CIT vs Value Capital services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del), Netscape Software Ltd. in ITA no 3852/Mum/2009 dated 19.10.2011,CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349, (SC). 22. The Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the addition on the basis of being unabated assessment year by following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) and Murali Agro Products Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors 23. After hearing both the parties and…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del),CIT vs Creative World Telefilm Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom), CIT vs Value Capital services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del), Netscape Software Ltd. in ITA no 3852/Mum/2009 dated 19.10.2011,CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349, (SC). 22. The Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the addition on the basis of being unabated assessment year by following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) and Murali Agro Products Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors 23. After hearing both the parties and…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…nished proper explanation supported with documents has discharged his burden. In the interest of justice, the additions have to be deleted. ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 63 of 64 99. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fact that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to b…