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 367,164 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

Sri Vikas Baburao Jadhav, Ramanagar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 3051/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Vikas Baburao Jadhav, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, No.616, Thulasi Gardens Street, Ward – 1, Channapatna, Ramanagar. Ramanagar – 562 160. Pan : Ajopj 2076 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. G., Advocate
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144

…/- on account of unsecured loan credits is neither factually tenable nor sustainable and is liable to be deleted. In coming to this factual finding, support is drawn from the observations / findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram (87 ITR 349). Consequently, ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 4th September, 2019. (N. V. VASUDEVAN) Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 4th September, 2019. /NS/* Page 9 of 9 Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…under:- (1) CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 . (2) Sumati Dayal v.CIT 214 ITR 801 (3) Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). (4) Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC) (5) McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC) (6) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); (10) Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) (11) Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA no. 6727/Mum/2012 and CO no. 06/Mum/2014 (12) Nikunj Eximp (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 20 (Bom),. (13) Killi…

Shri Narendra Tripathi, Bhopal vs. The DCIT-Central-1, Bhopal

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 300/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…y ‘on money’ . Even the Ld. A.O made no effort to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. 13. In these given facts and circumstances and in view of the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Daulat Mal Rawat Mal, 87 ITR 349 (SC) and K.P. Verghese V/s ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) that, “the burden was on the department to prove such allegation that the assessee has paid any ‘on money’ over and above of stated consideration in registered sale deed.” We find no justification in the addition made by the Ld. A.O u/s 69B of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 in the hands of th…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Guwahati vs. Prag Raj Singla, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Sandip Sengupta, JCIT DRFor Respondent: Shri B. L. Purohit FCA & Shri Subash Purohit, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ct. 12. We note that the action of the AO, being based on extraneous and irrelevant material,totally ignoring the relevant material cannot be sustained as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central) Calcutta vs. Daulatram Rawatmull [(1973) 87 ITR 349). Thus, from the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is clear that (i) conclusions drawn on the basis of irrelevant material cannot be the basis of treating a loan as income of the assessee under Section 68 and (ii) merely because there was some alleged mistake found in the bank Statement of the creditor, it cannot and should not be conclu…

Suresh Mulchand Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD- 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6407/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6407 & 6208/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Suresh Mulchand Shah बिधम/ Ito, Ward 19(3)(4) Matru Mandir, Mumbai Huf Vs. Shop No. A-1B, Mahavir Darshan, Saidham Complex, 26 Khambata Lane, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahs0924H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. Nos.6407 & 6208/M/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

…mstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 7.7. 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 ITA. Nos.6407 & 6208/M/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 apparent was not the real, in a case where an authority relied on self - serving recit…

Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

…It is settled law that what is apparent is real unless controverted. The onus lay upon the person, who alleges that what is apparent is not real. The ld. A/R referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC), followed in 7 Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota. case of CIT vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 230 ITR 580 (SC). In the present case, what was apparent was that both the parties have denied to accept /paid loan. Shri DP Sehgal denied that he could not arrange fund for the assessee Shri Ram Kishan Verma. Similarly, Shri Ram Kishan Verma denied that he…

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Madhuben Prakash Parekh, Mumbai

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.2079 & 2080/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer- बिधम/ Shri Madhuben Prakash Parekh 19(2)(3), Vs. C/O M/S. Prakash Traders 51, Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, C.P. Tank Road, Mumbai- Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 400004. Mumbai-400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp6219N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.2080/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

…mstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 7.7. 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 ITA. Nos.2080 & 2079/M/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 the real, in a case where an authority relied on self -serving recital…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and 104 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT the Hon’ble High Court. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) 2. Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is Benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. 3. Prakash Narain Vs CIT 134 ITR 364 (ALL) 4. Lal Chand Agarwal vs. ACIT 21 Ta…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and 104 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT the Hon’ble High Court. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) 2. Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is Benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. 3. Prakash Narain Vs CIT 134 ITR 364 (ALL) 4. Lal Chand Agarwal vs. ACIT 21 Ta…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nitin Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and 104 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT the Hon’ble High Court. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) 2. Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is Benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. 3. Prakash Narain Vs CIT 134 ITR 364 (ALL) 4. Lal Chand Agarwal vs. ACIT 21 Ta…

Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 126/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and 104 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT the Hon’ble High Court. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) 2. Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is Benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. 3. Prakash Narain Vs CIT 134 ITR 364 (ALL) 4. Lal Chand Agarwal vs. ACIT 21 Ta…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 125/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and 104 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT the Hon’ble High Court. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) 2. Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is Benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. 3. Prakash Narain Vs CIT 134 ITR 364 (ALL) 4. Lal Chand Agarwal vs. ACIT 21 Ta…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and 104 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT the Hon’ble High Court. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) 2. Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, AIR 1974 SC 171 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is Benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. 3. Prakash Narain Vs CIT 134 ITR 364 (ALL) 4. Lal Chand Agarwal vs. ACIT 21 Ta…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…itors and/or ITA Nos. 1077 to 1081/Del/2019 34 sub-creditors. [See CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)]." 38. That in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 at page 359, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “The explanation furnished about the source of Rs. 5,00,000 in fixed deposit in the name of Biswanath was that he had kept an amount of Rs. 4,50,000 with M/s. Soorajmal Nagarmal and Rs. 50,000 in deposit with Comilla Bank. The amount of Rs. 4,50,000 was stated to have been withdrawn by Biswanath…

Smt.Geeta Khare, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 4267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
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…

D.C.I.T. - 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Academy for Global Education Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1134/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of Academy For Global Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(1) Education Services Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, C-09, Konark Indraprastha, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Sarvoday Nagar, Naur Village, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aahca2596F अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. S. Bist, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh R. Shah, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri B. S. Bist, DRFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh R. Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…real unless proved otherwise. It is a settled legal position that "apparent is real" and the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349. 13. In the present case, the overwhelming evidence proves that the 'nature' of receipt is share premium. The audited accounts of both parties, the statutory since it was the department which claimed that the share premium is not in fact so, despite the statutory forms viz. Form 2 for return of allotment and Form 20B for annual return filed with t…

Rohit Jalan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…'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…

Shri Gulbahar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Dasuya

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

ITA 335/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 335/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…process, that therefore is important, and is to be seen, as emphasized time and again by the Apex Court, toward which reference may be made to some of its’ decisions, viz. CIT v. Radha Kishan Nandlal [1975] 99 ITR 143 (SC); CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC); Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC); Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC)). The same, accordingly, provides the frame-work under 3 Gulbahar Singh v. ITO which the question arising for determination – a matter of fact, is to be addressed and decided. The assessee’s case that the fair market value (fmv) is ge…

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Umeshbhai R. Patel, Prop: M/S.Uma Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4864/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) V. Shri Umeshbhai R. Patel Room No. 201 Prop: M/S. Uma Gems Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 117/A, Pancharatna, Mumbai – 400 007 Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Acfpp 2969 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra
Section 132(4)Section 147

…tax gatherer and his perhaps not so successful advisors on the other side. 7.7 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). It is also a settled legal proposition that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. In the instant case, the appellant had miserably failed to lead the evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1SS8] i72_ILR_250 /_3£ lexm…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…ed by the assessee, the onus was upon the assessing officer to prove that the transaction was not genuine, by bringing some adverse material on record. The Ld. AR made reference to the following decisions: Kalwa Vs. UOl 49 HR 165 (SC) • CIT vs. Daulat Ram 87 ITR 349 (SC) • CIT vs. Durgaprasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) • In view of the above, in the absence of any adverse evidence being brought on record by the Assessing Officer thereby failing to discharge placed on it, the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted on the aforesaid ground itself, at the threshold. 150. The Ld. AR further submitted that miniscule…