CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

…ces for what they really are and to refuse to give judicial benediction. 5.2.6 The onus to prove that apparent, is not the real one, is on the party who claims it to be so, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 and CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra). In the latter case, it has been held by the Apex Court that though an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that apparent was not the real, in a case where an authority relied on self serving recitals in documents, it was for the party to establish the…

M/S Kundali Jewel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3511/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer 12 Pvt. Ltd. (3)(1) Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (E), Mumbai. Marg, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4337/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer 12 बिधम/ M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) (3)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Thakur Village, Kandivali Marg, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Pnek10340B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm) The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.3511/Mum/2019 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

….68 does not put the burden on the assessee to prove the source-of-source. 10.4 From the above, as submitted by the AR, it follows that it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of the money of his creditors {CIT V/s. Daulat Ram Rawaltmull 87 ITR 349 (SC). Reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC). It is also possible that a creditor may have advanced funds from out of his exempted income. For eg. If the creditor has agricultural income which is exempt, then merely because the creditor is not assessed to tax, it does not…

Chetna Suresh Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3948 /मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Chetna Suresh Gada, 1103/1104, Gagangiri Tower, Dr.Deshmukh Lane, Opp. Vp Road, Mumbai 400 004 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Aabpg8894P बनाम/ Vs.

…. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT reported as 371 ITR 271 held that suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take the place of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull reported as 87 ITR 349 held that the onus to prove that the mistake apparent is not read is on the party who claims it to be so. Here it is the Assessing Officer who is alleging that the assessee has 6 paid commission to bogus entry provider. The burden is on the Assessing Officer to adduce evidence to prove payment of alleged commission to bogus entry provider. The As…

M/S Shailesh Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shailesh Jain Huf, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaihs3182H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Agspj9797K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…/2019 M/s. Shailesh Jain HUF& Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain case of Oman Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC> where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmuil (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so.” (b) In the case of Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT ITA No.3429/M/2019 & ors. order dated 01.10.2019, the co- ordinate Bench has held under similar facts by following various decisions of the Apex Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court t…

Vinod L. Gadhiya, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC5(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

…ortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oman Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC> where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmuil (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so.” (b) In the case of Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT ITA No.3429/M/2019 & ors. order dated 01.10.2019, the co- ordinate Bench has held under similar facts by following various decisions of the Apex Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court t…

Income Tax Officer 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vishwakarma Structure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…ion and surmises. He finally relied on various decisions referred to in the appellate order such as Green Infra Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, [2013] 145 ITD 240 (Bombay), CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bombay) and CIT vs Daulat Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee by holding that assessee has provided all the evidences to the Assessing Officer and thus discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the investors, however, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any corroborative evidences on reco…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Almega Paints Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Almega Paints Pvt. Ltd., Tax - 15(1)(1), B-24, Minerva Industrial Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Estate, Off P.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mulund (W), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca3698N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Anand Prakash Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 6 DTR 191 (All.) (ii) CIT v. Jauharimal Goel [ 2005] 147 Taxman 448 (All.) (iii) S. Hastimal v. CIT [ 1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) (iv) Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1996] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) (v) CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [ 1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (vi) Sarogi Credit Corpn. V. CIT [ 1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (vii) CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. [ 1986] 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) (viii) Asstt. CIT (Investigation ) v. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries [ 2003] 1 MTC 780 (ix) ITO v. M.S. Advance (P) Ltd. [ 2005] 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.) (x) Vinod Kumar Bhandari v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 1…

ITO 14 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Supergold Properties Pvt Ltd.[Successor of M/S Advaya Tex Trading Pvt Ltd], Mumbai

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer- M/s. Supergold 14(3)(4), Properties Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, (Successor of M/s. Room No.482(1), Advaya Tex Trading Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.), M.K. Road, Vs. Shop No.1, Mumbai - 400020 Bldg. No.2, A Wing, Shramik CHS Ltd., Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089 PAN: AACCK2900N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer- M/s. Supergold 14(3)(4), Properties Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Shop No.1, Room…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…d Telefilms Ltd (333 ITR 100) (Jurisdictional Bombay High Court)  CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. ITA No.911/2010 – Del HC  S. Hastimal v. CIT[1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga v. CIT[1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) 38 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2.37 We also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. K.Noorjahan (237 ITR 570) (SC) to bring home the point that every case of cash credit does not have to be taxed under Section 68 of the Act. The word us…