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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abhinav Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4354/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. M/S Abhinav Steels Pvt. Ltd Circle -1(1) 401, Mahaveer Ji Complex New Delhi Lsc, Rishab Jain Vihar New Delhi Pan : Aabca 3974 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surendrapal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendrapal, Sr. DR
Section 68

…rned Tribunal seriously fell into error in treating the said amounts as income derived by the appellant from undisclosed sources merely on the failure of the sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness”. 11. In the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna), the Hon'ble’ High Court observed as under:- “Once the identity of the third party is established before the Income Tax Officer and such other 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 be said to have been duly discharged by him. It will n…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

…on the following decisions: - 13 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur (i) Sideways Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 24 Tax World 146 (JP ITAT) (ii) CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) (iii) Saraogi Credit Corp. Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (PAT) (g) The assessee relies on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 79 (SC) The assessee had given named and addresses of the cash creditors, who were income tax assessees. Revenue apart from issuing summon u/s 131 notices to creditors, did not pursue the matter further- it did not examine creditworthi…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/55/2017HC Delhi25 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 68

…Shah 290 ITR 433 (hereafter ‘Mukundray Shah’) in this behalf. 21. Mr. Aggarwal also relies upon Kamdhenu (supra), CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls and Investment Ltd. 237 TAXMAN 104 (hereafter `Shivdhooti') and Dwarkadhish (supra), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT 103 ITR 344, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150, Addl CIT vs. Bahri Bros.(P) 154 ITR 244, CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel [1997] 224 ITR 180, Smt. Neelamben Gopaldas Agrawal vs. ITO [2015] 57 taxmann.com 176 (Guj), to submit that it is settled law that the source of the source need not be explained. 22. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal further u…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…l position that the appellant had duly proved the source of loans/deposits and it was not required to prove source of source as held in the following case laws: a) 49ITR 274, 279, H. Hasti Mal vs. C1T, (Mad) b) 87ITR 349, CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mal, (SC) c) 103 ITR 344, Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, (Patna) Further it is by now well settled proposition of law that apparent is real unless contrary is proved and the onus to prove that such creditors were merely name lender was on the Revenue as held by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87ITR 349. There was absolutely no contra…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IT vs. Rainee Singh following judgments. 5 i) 264 ITR 254 Page. 261 to 266 (Gau.) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT ii) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO e) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders f) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. j) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Tolaram Daga vs. CIT k) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 6.1 As regards addition of Rs. 5,49,000/- representing loans received by the assessee an…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…ay be made to the decisions in S. Hastimal vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273(Mad); Tola Ram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4 AY: 2006-07 (Cal.)]. (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.); CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); Sarogi Credit Corpn. Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat); CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd.(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) & Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). In this regard, it is important to take note of the judgment in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram (Supra) holding that the burden is on the department to show that the money be longed to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on recor…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…source from which depositor has derived the money which he has advanced to assessee, no addition can be made and for this purpose reliance was placed on the following decisions :- Daulatram Rawatmull v/s CIT 87 ITR 349 (S.C.) Sarogi Credit Corporation v/s CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat) Tolaram Daga v/s CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ITO v/s. Suresh Kalmadi ITA No.764 (Pune) 1985 - Page 955 BCA January 89 Held the assessee is under no obligation to show source of the source for loans. It is immaterial & even if creditors have shown exact amount of received on the date of advancement of loan & if after repayment exact cash is drawn…

ITO Ward 17 (4) vs. Vital Communication Ltd

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2448/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

….15 It was rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel that onus to prove the source of the credits stood discharged in this case in terms of the following decisions with which I concur and there was thus no case for making any addition:- Sarogi Credit Corp. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344/345 (Pat.) I. Add!. CIT vs.Bahri Bros (P) Ltd. 154 ITR 244(Pat.) 23 2. CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349/350 (SC) 3. CIT VS. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 4. Sona E1ec. Co. vs. (IT 152 ITR 507/508 (Delhi) 5. Jalan Timbers vs. (IT 223 ITR 11116 (Gau.) 6. Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) 5.16 Assessing Officer ha…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5334/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 6 DTR 308) CIT v/s Gujrath Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 795 (S.C.) In Honble High Court CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bombay.) CIT v/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Saraogi Credit Corporation vis CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna) CIT v/s Misra Preservers (P) Ltd., 350 ITR 222 (All) 14 ITA No.5332-5334/14 & CO No.40/16 CIT v/s Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. 350 ITR 220 (All) CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech P. Ltd .. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v/s K.C.Fibres Ltd 332 ITR 481 (Del) CIT v/s STL Extrusion Pvt.Ltd 333 ITR 269 (M.P.)…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5333/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 6 DTR 308) CIT v/s Gujrath Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 795 (S.C.) In Honble High Court CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bombay.) CIT v/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Saraogi Credit Corporation vis CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna) CIT v/s Misra Preservers (P) Ltd., 350 ITR 222 (All) 14 ITA No.5332-5334/14 & CO No.40/16 CIT v/s Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. 350 ITR 220 (All) CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech P. Ltd .. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v/s K.C.Fibres Ltd 332 ITR 481 (Del) CIT v/s STL Extrusion Pvt.Ltd 333 ITR 269 (M.P.)…

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Genesis Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5332/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332 To 5334/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06 To 2007-08) Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.40/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5334/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Genesis Trading Pvt. Vs. Ito-5(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd., Oceanic, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.34, Rajab Ali Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 1820 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bepari ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Agrawal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.R.AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), 6 DTR 308) CIT v/s Gujrath Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 795 (S.C.) In Honble High Court CIT v/s Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bombay.) CIT v/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Saraogi Credit Corporation vis CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna) CIT v/s Misra Preservers (P) Ltd., 350 ITR 222 (All) 14 ITA No.5332-5334/14 & CO No.40/16 CIT v/s Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. 350 ITR 220 (All) CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech P. Ltd .. 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd 329 ITR 271 (Del) CIT v/s K.C.Fibres Ltd 332 ITR 481 (Del) CIT v/s STL Extrusion Pvt.Ltd 333 ITR 269 (M.P.)…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…the identity of the share applicants and the share application money has been received by way of account payee cheques-No question of law arises. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation, 103 ITR 344, decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decis…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…the identity of the share applicants and the share application money has been received by way of account payee cheques-No question of law arises. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation, 103 ITR 344, decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decis…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…the identity of the share applicants and the share application money has been received by way of account payee cheques-No question of law arises. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation, 103 ITR 344, decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decis…

Parmanand K Hinduja, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1049/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1049/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Parmanand K. Hinduja, Asst. Comm. Of Income बनाम/ 402, Banswani Tower, Tax – Circle – 2, V. Near Corporation Bank, Mohan Plaza, Ist Floor, Municipal Road, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan (West). Dist. Thane – 401003. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacph9702N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…g judicial pronouncements:- ITA 1049/Mum/2014 5 i) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 49 ITR 723 (Bom) ii) CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Ltd. , 100 ITR 360 (Mad.) iii) Addl. CIT v. Hanuman Agarwal, 151 ITR 150 (Patna) iv) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, 103 ITR 344 v) Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros (P) Ltd., 154 ITR 244 (Patna) vi) Bhadarmal Hajarimal v. ITO, 5TTJ 297 vii) ITO v. Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrigeration Company,19 TTJ 467 viii) ITO v. Sikkanthan Stores, 7 TTJ 294 (Mad.) ix) Champaklal Dhamanwala HUF v. ITO, 34 ITD 209 (Ahm.) x) Atmaram J. Manghirmalani HUF v. ITO, 67 ITD 289 (Mum) xi) J.S. Hastima…

Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana vs. ITO, Fatehabad

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

ITA 1542/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.1542/Del./2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Banwari Lal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2, S/O Shri Bishan Dass, Fatehabad. 31, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Distt. Fatehabad.

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Peeyush Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR
Section 68

…ayawati 338 ITR 563 (Del) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (vii) CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) (viii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (x) Dwarikadhish Sugar Industries vs. ITO 149 TTJ 401 (TM) In view of the above submissions, the ld. AR pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT (A) be set aside and the ground taken in the appeal be allowed. 8. The learned DR relied upon the findings of the authorities below and submitted that the facts on record established that the burd…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

ITTA/125/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN