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

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

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

ITA 929/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

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

…)  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) (Del.)  Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (G…

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

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

ITA 928/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

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

…)  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) (Del.)  Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (G…

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

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

ITA 927/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

…)  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) (Del.)  Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (G…

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

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

ITA 926/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

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

…)  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) (Del.)  Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (G…

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

…)  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) (Del.)  Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (G…

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

…)  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) (Del.)  Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (G…

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

…)  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) (Del.)  Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (G…

DCIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4169/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-13(3)(2), M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Jaimala Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Hotel Shimmers, Link Road, Mumbai-400020. Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaecv 0129 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

…, asking source of such deposits will amount to asking source of the source which is not permitted under the law as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 1975 CTR M/s Vedartha Entertainment Ltd 7 (Pat) 1 : (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) and the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rohini Builders vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 76 TTJ (Ahd) 521 : (2001) 117 Taxman 25 (Ahd) (Mag). Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he is a family member or close relative then the responsibility of the assessee is over. The assess…

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

…mely Murulidhar Lahorimal vs M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in a large no of judicial pronouncements, it had been held the department is free to reopen the individual assessments of the parties in…

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

…mely Murulidhar Lahorimal vs M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in a large no of judicial pronouncements, it had been held the department is free to reopen the individual assessments of the parties in…

Mr.Shafaat M Husain, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5371/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Shafaat M. Husain, Acit – 17(3) 11, Jolly Maker Apts Iii, Mumbai - 400007 Cuffe Parade, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaaph5013Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. A) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing An Order Without Giving An Opportunity To Explain The Case. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted. B) The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Accepting The Plea Of The New Authorized Representative Of The Assessee With Regard To The Date Of Hearing. The Same Be Considered & An Opportunity Be Given. 2. A) Without Prejudice To The Above, The Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Not Considering The Amount Of Rs. 4,39,07,574/- Being Inheritance From His Father By Way Of Will. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted B) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Failed To Consider That The Assessee'S Father Was A Renowned Painter & Hence His Credibility Could Not Be Doubted. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Khalsa, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…n defense of his arguments namely Indo-Aden Salt Manufacturing & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(1986) 159ITR 624(SC), RK Syal V ACIT (2000) 66 TTJ 656 (Chad.), Atmaram J Manghirmalani (HUF) vs. ITO (1998) 62 TTJ (Mumbai) 357 and Saraogi Credit Corporation (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat). The Ld. A.R. finally submitted that under these facts and circumstances when the money has been received under inheritance from father’s estate under will and is exempt from tax, any addition under section 68/68A is wrong and has to be deleted. 8. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of authorities below by submitt…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…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) (ix). CIT Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Del) (x). CIT Vs. Cre…

Swarn Gems P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133(6)Section 68

…of all the transactions, identity of the creditors and the source of the fund received. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corpn. 103 ITR 344 (Patna) iv) Tola Ram Daga 59 ITR 632 (Asm) v) Suresh Kalmadi 32 TTJ 300 (Pune Tri.) vi) DCIT vs. Anand Prakash Goenka 52 ITD 73 (Cal) vii) ACIT vs. Mohanlal Mishrilal & Sons 52 TTJ 9 (Indore) viii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141 ix) CIT vs. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 x) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) xi) CIT vs. Gagandeep In…

ITO 26 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pratishna Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4899/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…hat the alleged hawala parties have made submission before the AO through registered post. 7.3.5 It has been held by Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd vs. CIT(49 ITR 723), Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (103 ITR 344), Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Qani Silk Palace (171 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2010-11) M/s. Pratishna Engineers ITR 373), Allahbad High Court in the case of Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (98 ITR 280), it will not thereafter be for the assessee to explain further. The burden will shift on to the AO to show why the assessee's case cannot be accepted,…

ACIT-26(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pratishna Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…hat the alleged hawala parties have made submission before the AO through registered post. 7.3.5 It has been held by Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd vs. CIT(49 ITR 723), Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (103 ITR 344), Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Qani Silk Palace (171 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2010-11) M/s. Pratishna Engineers ITR 373), Allahbad High Court in the case of Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (98 ITR 280), it will not thereafter be for the assessee to explain further. The burden will shift on to the AO to show why the assessee's case cannot be accepted,…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 69A

…e assessee and also a request was made to issue summons under section 131 of the Act, if the A.O. had any doubt. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Daulat Ram Rawat Mal reported in 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Patna) 6.5 It was further stated that the addition under section 69A of the Act could have been made if unexplained income which was not recorded in the books of account but in the present case amount had been recorded in the book of account and even the source had been explained, therefore the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld.…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…e a deposit of the same which the assessee. In substance, Hon’ble High Court held that the revenue is not entitled to examine the source of sources of the amount deposited. That Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) held that once the identity of the third party is established before the ITO and other such evidence are prima facie placed before him pointing to the fact that the entry is not fictitious, the initial burden lying on the assessee can he said to have been duly discharged by him. It will not, therefore, be for the assessee to explain further…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…e a deposit of the same which the assessee. In substance, Hon’ble High Court held that the revenue is not entitled to examine the source of sources of the amount deposited. That Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) held that once the identity of the third party is established before the ITO and other such evidence are prima facie placed before him pointing to the fact that the entry is not fictitious, the initial burden lying on the assessee can he said to have been duly discharged by him. It will not, therefore, be for the assessee to explain further…

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

ITA 3511/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

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: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 40

…ut the existence of a bank account of the share applicant itself proves the existence of the share applicants. For this proposition, the appellant referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation V/s. CIT{1976 }103 ITR 344 (Pat). The AR further referred to these following decisions in support of its contention. In the case of Shantilal Jain ITXA/687/2004 decided on31.7.2007, the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court held that merely because the creditors are not assessed to tax, it does not follow that the amounts should be assessed as assessee's income. Where the amou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Tarun Devcon Private Limited, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

ITA 18/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Reliance was placed by him on several decisions, notably CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC); CIT vs. Metachem Inds. [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP); Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gau); Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Patna); and Tolaram Daga vs. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Ass). The Revenue challenges their deletion before us. 3. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. 3.1 Our first observation in the matter is that the AO has not doubted either the genuineness (of the credits) or the identity of the creditors, but only their creditwort…