CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC)

352 ITR 629High Court2013#1592 most cited

What is CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC) authority for?

To make an addition under Section 69B for undisclosed investment, the Revenue must first prove that an understatement of investment has occurred and that the assessee made the undisclosed investment. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and additions cannot be based merely on presumptions or assumptions without corroborative material.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF · 352 ITR 629 · Section 69B · undisclosed investment · understatement of investment · burden of proof Revenue · presumptions assumptions addition · corroborative material · unexplained investment · no addition without evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 69BSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 132(1)Section 56(2)(x)Section 14ASection 153DSection 80IC

Issues it is cited on

section 153a proceedingsvoluntary admissionillegal paymentsection 69bsection 56(2)(x)on money receiptvaluation of sharessection 158b(b)third party informationsection 80icabatement of assessmentsection 194ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3858/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…n respect of the property under reference that the assessee expended or received any excess amount over and above what is stated in the conveyance deed. j) Relying upon the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF (2013) 352 ITR 629, CIT(A) held that the AO cannot take judicial notice of certain information available in the property websites or in the so called reports without there being any specific and positive evidence of cash transaction in the property under reference. Thus, various assumptions made by the AO do not find support of the law. 8.3. With regard to Cal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…n respect of the property under reference that the assessee expended or received any excess amount over and above what is stated in the conveyance deed. j) Relying upon the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF (2013) 352 ITR 629, CIT(A) held that the AO cannot take judicial notice of certain information available in the property websites or in the so called reports without there being any specific and positive evidence of cash transaction in the property under reference. Thus, various assumptions made by the AO do not find support of the law. 8.3. With regard to Cal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3826/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…n respect of the property under reference that the assessee expended or received any excess amount over and above what is stated in the conveyance deed. j) Relying upon the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF (2013) 352 ITR 629, CIT(A) held that the AO cannot take judicial notice of certain information available in the property websites or in the so called reports without there being any specific and positive evidence of cash transaction in the property under reference. Thus, various assumptions made by the AO do not find support of the law. 8.3. With regard to Cal…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

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

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…mlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) v) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vi) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) viii) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 45 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 29. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing any corroborative material on record in support of such conclusion. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made me…

Dy. CIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Rekha Khaitan, Delhi

ITA 2831/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…asis of valuation report and not on the basis of any incriminating material. Ld. Counsel relied judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in R.S. Bedi vs. ACIT in ITA No. 144/2003, CIT v. Agile Properties [2014] 45 Taxmann.com 512 and CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF [2013] 352 ITR 629 to support aforesaid legal submissions. 10. On merits the written submission filed by Ld. AR, are extracted here for the convenience where it is submitted on facts that “the arbitrary disallowance of a mere 770.90 grams of (being "stridhan" of the Assessee) and allowance of just 100 grams ("extra allowance" of 500 grams amongst 5 family members…

Rekha Kaitan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 2520/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…asis of valuation report and not on the basis of any incriminating material. Ld. Counsel relied judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in R.S. Bedi vs. ACIT in ITA No. 144/2003, CIT v. Agile Properties [2014] 45 Taxmann.com 512 and CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF [2013] 352 ITR 629 to support aforesaid legal submissions. 10. On merits the written submission filed by Ld. AR, are extracted here for the convenience where it is submitted on facts that “the arbitrary disallowance of a mere 770.90 grams of (being "stridhan" of the Assessee) and allowance of just 100 grams ("extra allowance" of 500 grams amongst 5 family members…

M/S.R.S.Rangadas vs. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkr Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2135/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…4 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vil) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 426 (All) ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 51. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible ma…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apana Ghar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2134/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…4 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vil) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 426 (All) ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 51. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible ma…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apna Ghar Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2133/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…4 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vil) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 426 (All) ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 51. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible ma…

ACIT 2(3) 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2132/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…4 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vil) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 426 (All) ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 51. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible ma…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Housing Developement Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…4 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vil) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 426 (All) ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 51. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible ma…

Shailaja Kalvakuntla, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA no

ITA 1364/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69

…sprove the claim of the assessee. Apart from the above, the ld. AR also argued that the AO ought to have made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following cases in support of assessee’s case: 1. CIVT Vs. Dinesh Jain, HUF, 352 ITR 629 (Del.) 2. CIT Vs. Kulwinder Singh [2019] 415 ITR 49 (P&H) 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. AR and argued that there is no basis for cash flow statement Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos. 734/Hyd/2014 & 1364/Hyd/2015 Shailaja Kalvakuntla, Hyd. submitted by the assessee. He argued that assessee has shown openin…

Shailaja Kalvakuntla, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA no

ITA 734/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69

…sprove the claim of the assessee. Apart from the above, the ld. AR also argued that the AO ought to have made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following cases in support of assessee’s case: 1. CIVT Vs. Dinesh Jain, HUF, 352 ITR 629 (Del.) 2. CIT Vs. Kulwinder Singh [2019] 415 ITR 49 (P&H) 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. AR and argued that there is no basis for cash flow statement Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos. 734/Hyd/2014 & 1364/Hyd/2015 Shailaja Kalvakuntla, Hyd. submitted by the assessee. He argued that assessee has shown openin…

Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin ShahFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1809/Ahd/2012 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 8th Floor, Shikhar Nr. Circle – 1, Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN No.AABCA 3183 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin Shah Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R. Respondentby: 17.09.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the ass…

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

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

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

…rty is on the assessee. It is very unlikely that a property can be bought by the appellant assessee at a rate which is much lower than the prevailing market rate….” The finding of Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in the light of CIT v/s Dinesh Jain HUF(Delhi) (High Court) 352 ITR 629 wherein it was stated that “Section 69B in terms requires that the Assessing Officer has to first 'find' that the assessee has 'expended' an amount which he has not fully recorded in his books of account. It is only then that the burden shifts to the assessee to furnish a satisfactory explanation. Till the initial burden is discharged by the Asse…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…uld have gained a higher price which in fact was not received. Reference can be also made to CITv. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 68 Taxman 344/200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550/211 Taxman 23/[2013] 352 ITR 629 and CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002] 123 Taxman 111/257 ITR 703 (Del). 25. As noted above, Section 52 of the Act was omitted by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988. The said provision, therefore, was not applicable in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. We have referred to the aforesaid judgment in K.P. Vearghese case (supra) as this judgmen…

Aura Securities Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…uld have gained a higher price which in fact was not received. Reference can be also made to CITv. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 68 Taxman 344/200 ITR 567 (SC) and judgments of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550/211 Taxman 23/[2013] 352 ITR 629 and CIT v. Gulshan Kumar [2002] 123 Taxman 111/257 ITR 703 (Del). 25. As noted above, Section 52 of the Act was omitted by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988. The said provision, therefore, was not applicable in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. We have referred to the aforesaid judgment in K.P. Vearghese case (supra) as this judgmen…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 I…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 I…