CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

103 ITR 344High Court1976#1161 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

The assessee is not required to prove the source of the source of funds, nor the origin of the origin of the funds. The onus is discharged if the identity of the creditor and the actual receipt of money are proved.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull · section 68 · source of source · origin of origin · creditworthiness of creditor · identity of creditor · share application money · addition under section 68 · genuineness of transaction · preponderance of probability

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 131Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditoreligible assesseestatement under section 132(4)share capital and share premiumretracted statementaddition under section 68preponderance of probabilityshare application moneyeligible businessaddition u/s 68genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Oth…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

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

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Oth…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…rein it is held that, the source for the source and origin for the origin need not be proved by the investor. i) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 5.19 (i) In the present case the appellant has not only proved the source but also the source of the source. The investor Mr. Samyak C. Veera has accepted the investment. It is open for the department to initiate ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…rein it is held that, the source for the source and origin for the origin need not be proved by the investor. i) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 5.19 (i) In the present case the appellant has not only proved the source but also the source of the source. The investor Mr. Samyak C. Veera has accepted the investment. It is open for the department to initiate ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…rein it is held that, the source for the source and origin for the origin need not be proved by the investor. i) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 5.19 (i) In the present case the appellant has not only proved the source but also the source of the source. The investor Mr. Samyak C. Veera has accepted the investment. It is open for the department to initiate ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India…

DCIT -CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…imary onus, the source of the source cannot be questioned. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that c…

DCIT -CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3751/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…imary onus, the source of the source cannot be questioned. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that c…

DCIT - CC - 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3750/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…imary onus, the source of the source cannot be questioned. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that c…

DCIT -CC -8 (4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3749/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…imary onus, the source of the source cannot be questioned. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that c…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2854/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…imary onus, the source of the source cannot be questioned. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that c…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2853/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…imary onus, the source of the source cannot be questioned. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that c…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-47 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2852/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…imary onus, the source of the source cannot be questioned. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the following judgements:- 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 57 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Dwakadish Investment Pvt Ltd – 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3. Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT – 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 4. DCIT vs Rohini Builders – 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5. Aravali Trading Co vs ITO – 220 CTR 622 (Raj) 6. Nemi Chad Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gauh) 19. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Bermaco Industries Ltd for A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 10/06/2015 since the repayment was made by the assessee in that c…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Premier Supplies & Services P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 15(2)(2) V. M/S. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 47, Satya Sai Plaza Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector-11, Plot No. 5 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Panvel, Navi Mumbai - 410206 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg2655A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…147 (Del) The provisions of section 68 held not applicable where the share application money and its source had been satisfactorily been explained being a finding of fact 15 M/s. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, (1976) 103 ITR 344, 349- 50 (Pat) The Assessing Officer's rejection, not of the explanation of the assessee, but of the explanation regarding the source of income of the depositor, cannot by itself lead to any inference regarding the non-genuine or fictitious character of the entries in the assessee's books of account. Hence, it at can be easily inferred that Ld. A…

Naresh T. Wadhwani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(4), Pune

ITA 792/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.792/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Naresh T Wadhwani, The Income Tax Officer, Office No.9, Umed Bhavan, Vs Ward-8(4), Pune. Canara Bank, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabpw 7203 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V.L.Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune’S Order Dated 27.03.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/Ito Wd.8(4)/10658/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…ount belongs to assessee. Further various High Courts have held that assessee cannot be asked to prove the ‘source of source' or the origin of origin' and for this proposition, we draw support from the decision in the case of Sargoi Credit Corporation Vs. CiT 103 ITR 344 (Patna) and CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Invesment P Ltd [2010] 330 ITR 298 (Delhi). Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the present case the assessee had fully discharged its initial onus on proving the cash credits and in such a situation, the addition u/s 68 of the Act in the present case was un called for. We ITA N…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 68

…hand Bohra Vs. ITO of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, 219 CTR 571. The decision of ld. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298, decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Aravali Trading Company Vs. ITO - 220 CTR 622. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has also discussed the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 15…

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 56/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

…hand Bohra Vs. ITO of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, 219 CTR 571. The decision of ld. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298, decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Aravali Trading Company Vs. ITO - 220 CTR 622. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhatiin the case of Nemichand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has also discussed the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 67/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ufficient and adequate material. In this respect, the assessee relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd, vs. CIT (49 TR 723) and the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sarai Credit Corporation vs. CIT (103 ITR 344). 11. The Ld. AO has failed to bring out how, in spite identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions 12 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 proved by the assessee as above how the transaction remained unexplained or bogus as alleged. 12. The assessee would also like to place reliance on following Judicial pronouncemen…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 66/MUM/2022[2013-14`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ufficient and adequate material. In this respect, the assessee relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd, vs. CIT (49 TR 723) and the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sarai Credit Corporation vs. CIT (103 ITR 344). 11. The Ld. AO has failed to bring out how, in spite identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions 12 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 proved by the assessee as above how the transaction remained unexplained or bogus as alleged. 12. The assessee would also like to place reliance on following Judicial pronouncemen…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 65/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ufficient and adequate material. In this respect, the assessee relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd, vs. CIT (49 TR 723) and the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sarai Credit Corporation vs. CIT (103 ITR 344). 11. The Ld. AO has failed to bring out how, in spite identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions 12 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 proved by the assessee as above how the transaction remained unexplained or bogus as alleged. 12. The assessee would also like to place reliance on following Judicial pronouncemen…

Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 64/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta, Ito-25(2)(1), G 601, Rustomjee Elements, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya S.N. 106 Cts 195 Part 5, Near Vs. Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Ymc A New D N Nagar, Azad Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Andheri West, (East), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afwpm6786L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. Ar : Ms. Samruddhi Hande. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ufficient and adequate material. In this respect, the assessee relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd, vs. CIT (49 TR 723) and the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sarai Credit Corporation vs. CIT (103 ITR 344). 11. The Ld. AO has failed to bring out how, in spite identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions 12 Jagruti Hitesh Mehta ITA Nos. 64 to 67/Mum/2022 proved by the assessee as above how the transaction remained unexplained or bogus as alleged. 12. The assessee would also like to place reliance on following Judicial pronouncemen…