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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull?

525 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 148.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349)

Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 178/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Sabbella Venkata Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 189/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Sathi Rama Krishna Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 188/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…t is real and the allegation to prove the ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 23 contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs.42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised…

Sanjay Kale vs. Income Tax Officer-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 234/JAB/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " " / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(4)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ""./ ITA No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " " / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (MP) Chhindwara (MP) PAN : AMCPK 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Shri P.D. Chougule, DR $ %&'/Date of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appe…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ther attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the AO is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion. ii. CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (87 ITR 349)(SC): It was held that assessee was not required to prove the source of the source. 37 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., iii. 190 ITR 396 (Bom): It was held that the assessee having discharged the initial burden, by giving complete name and address of the bankers and confirmation letters, it was for the Income-tax Officer to show that the explanation re…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos. 1326/M/2015 & 1327/M/2015, Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Kaviraj Construction Vs. ACIT 16(3) 10Atul Niwas, 1st Floor, Mumbai R.No. 20/21 7thFloor, Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai. Pin: 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFK3860C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.1190/M/2015 &1191/M/2015, Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 ACIT 16(3) Vs. Kaviraj Construction Mumbai 10Atul Niwas, 1st Floor, R.No. 20/21 7thFloor, Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai. Pin: 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.…

DCIT Cir.7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2596/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010 - 2011 Dcit Circle 7(3)(1) Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai बनाम/ Unit No.19, Shree Madhu Estate, Pandurang Budhakar Vs. Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2782R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…y cheques to these suppliers and substantive additions will be made in the hands of those concerns after necessary inquiries and investigation. The assessee has placed reliance on the following judgments before the CIT(A): (i) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmal (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) (ii) Parakh Foods Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (1998) 64 ITD 396 (Pune) (iii) Omkarmal Gaurishankar v. ITO (1991) 39 TTJ 223 (Ahd) (iv) Dimco Silk Mills v. ITO (1999) 107 Taxman 41 (Mag) 88. The CIT(A) after considering the entire relevant facts and material gave the following findings in para 4.8 of his appellate order in the case of Shri Nileshbhai K. P…

Shri Om Prakash Phatandas Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 1(2), Indore

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

ITA 968/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…as not brought on record any documentary or other evidence to substantiate his conclusion (assumption) that the assessee has purchased the said shares on 10.08.2007. This view was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dualat Ram Rawatmull [87 ITR 349 (SC)] The relevant paragraphs of the order are reproduced below:- “The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. As it was the department which claimed that the amount of fixed deposit receipt belonged to the respondent firm even though the receipt had been issued in the name of B, the burden laid on t…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…sis . It is well founded proposition that what is apparent is real and the allegation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- 8 A.Yrs.2011-12 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 rais…

Eih Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…sis . It is well founded proposition that what is apparent is real and the allegation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- 8 A.Yrs.2011-12 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 rais…

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…o. Pvt. Ltd. Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the…

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3067/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…establish source of the source of the source. The addition with respect to the entries of V and D, for the amounts of' 50.000/- each respectively made in the income of assessee, are ordered to be deleted. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 1972 CTR (SC) 411: (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) and Late Mangilal Agarwal through LRs vs. Asstt. CIT (2007) 208 CIR(Raj) followed; CIT vs Kishorilal Santoshilal (1995) 129 CTR (Raj) 450 1995, 216 ITR 9 (Raj) not followed’. 15. Respectfully following the judgments of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other Hon’ble High Court as well as decision of Co-ordinate Bench and after examining t…

Savitaben Mangaldas Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3066/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…establish source of the source of the source. The addition with respect to the entries of V and D, for the amounts of' 50.000/- each respectively made in the income of assessee, are ordered to be deleted. CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 1972 CTR (SC) 411: (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) and Late Mangilal Agarwal through LRs vs. Asstt. CIT (2007) 208 CIR(Raj) followed; CIT vs Kishorilal Santoshilal (1995) 129 CTR (Raj) 450 1995, 216 ITR 9 (Raj) not followed’. 15. Respectfully following the judgments of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other Hon’ble High Court as well as decision of Co-ordinate Bench and after examining t…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…stment u/s 69 is alleged. Following case laws were relied upon which have been totally ignored by the ld. CIT(A):- 12 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur Gist at PB S. No. Case law Page 1 CIT v. Daulat Ram rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) 72 2 Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 72 3 CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) 73 4 Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury & Ors. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 12 (SC) 73 Distict Superintendent of Police, Chennai v. K. Inbasagaran (2006) 5 73-74 282 ITR 435 (SC) 6 J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar & Ors. (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) 74-75 7 CIT…

Naini Resorts & Floriculture Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5695/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Smt Beena A. Pillaiita No. 5695/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjana, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…Axiom Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was asked for. The assessing officer simply treated the expenses incurred by the assessee on the construction to be bogus. This is a settled law in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 that onus is on the party which alleges that apparent is not real. No cogent material or evidence is brought to our knowledge by the ld. DR which may prove that the expenditure incurred by the assessee were bogus, not only this, we noted from the copy of the balance sheet audited balance sheet of the assessee along with schedule of the fixed asset…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…angible evidence placed on record that arrangements lacks bonafide or has been entered into for extraneous consideration. He referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulat 65 | P a g e I.T.A .No.-4737/Del/2017 Ram Rawatmul (87 ITR 349), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the apparent is real unless contrary is proved and onus to prove the contrary is on the question who alleges that apparent is not real. The assessee was adequately compensated for the aforesaid additional acquisition of shares in the form of payment of additional option fee of USD 26,57,000 per annum, which h…

M/S. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2491/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…k account, Balance Sheet and income tax return of the applicant companies before the learned assessing officer. The appellant was not required to prove the source of the source as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (87 ITR 349)(SC). Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd. (307 ITR 334) have held that the additional burden lay on the revenue to show that even if the applicant does not have means to make the investment in shares, the investment has emanated from the coffers of the assessee. In case, this additional burden is not disch…

M/S. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2485/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aaccb2540F (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb6551B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…k account, Balance Sheet and income tax return of the applicant companies before the learned assessing officer. The appellant was not required to prove the source of the source as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (87 ITR 349)(SC). Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd. (307 ITR 334) have held that the additional burden lay on the revenue to show that even if the applicant does not have means to make the investment in shares, the investment has emanated from the coffers of the assessee. In case, this additional burden is not disch…

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Naitik Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito -19(2)(4), M/S Naitik Gems Room No. 217, Matru Mandir, 1304, Prasad Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400007. Opera House, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aaafn5200F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashok J. Patil (AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…ax gatherer and his perhaps not so successful advisors on the other side. 8.7 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. However, in the instant case, the appellant has miserably failed to lead evidence. 8.8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250…

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

Sabbella Venkata Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

Sathi Rama Krishna Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

Sanjay Kale vs. Income Tax Officer-1

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

DCIT Cir.7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai

Shri Om Prakash Phatandas Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 1(2), Indore

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

Eih Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

Savitaben Mangaldas Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

Naini Resorts & Floriculture Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

M/S. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

M/S. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Naitik Gems, Mumbai