CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

330 ITR 298High Court2011#410 most cited

What is CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

218

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. · 330 ITR 298 · Section 68 · source of source · onus of proof · share application money · cash credit · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · unexplained cash credit · addition u/s 68

Also reported as

239 CTR 478

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 132(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceonus of proofcreditworthiness of the creditorshare application moneyshare capital and share premiumretracted statementaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionsection 132(1)section 133(6)unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…e r s s to o d p r o v e d o n record, amount of share application money could not be added to income of assessee. According to Tribunal, in such a case amount could be taxed in hands of persons who had invested" CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del-High Court) "Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to invoke s. 68— Revenue has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person—Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the 'source of source'— In the instant case, the Tribunal has…

Rivet Electrical Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., vs Pr.CIT, FF-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. PAN-AAFCR8803C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the Assess…

Dwarkadish Spinners Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7861/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year 2012-13 Dwarkadish Spinners Limited, Dcit, 1, Kouli Majra, Lalru, Vs Circle-7(2), Patiala – 140 501 Punjab.Pan: Aabcd0202D New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 68

…of the document, the departmental appeal was accordingly dismissed. 6.4. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. (i) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN number or income-tax assessment number and shows th…

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

…ermaco Energy System Ltd assessee has discharged the primary 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 10/06/201…

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

…ermaco Energy System Ltd assessee has discharged the primary 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 10/06/201…

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

…ermaco Energy System Ltd assessee has discharged the primary 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 10/06/201…

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

…ermaco Energy System Ltd assessee has discharged the primary 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 10/06/201…

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

…ermaco Energy System Ltd assessee has discharged the primary 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 10/06/201…

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

…ermaco Energy System Ltd assessee has discharged the primary 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 10/06/201…

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

…ermaco Energy System Ltd assessee has discharged the primary 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 10/06/201…

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills, Palakkad vs. ITO, Circle-1, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 576/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P.J., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…both authority is wrong and irrational. 3.6 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. (1) Dwarakadhish Investment P. Ltd., (ITA.No. 911 of 2010) and (ii) Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN number or income-tax assessment number and shows the…

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)

…f those parties which can be accessed by the AO from the departmental sources and claims that low income in one year cannot determine the capacity of the lender. The appellant relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt Ltd [2010] 330 ITR 298 (Del) "Though in sec. 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN or income Tax assessment number and show the genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mod…

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

…nces. The ld. CIT(A) has also discussed a number of judicial pronouncements i.e in the case of Lalchand 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…

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

…nces. The ld. CIT(A) has also discussed a number of judicial pronouncements i.e in the case of Lalchand 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…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7129/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, B-1643, Pocket 1, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaace0807C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, For Ay 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is One Of The Group Companies Of Kandhari Group & Is Engaged In The Business Of Preparation, Manufacturing, Packing & Sale Of Soft Drinks On The Basis Of Concentrate & Other Raw Material Procured From Coca Cola In The Capacity Of Bottler & Distributor Of Coca Cola Products In India. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.11.2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.14,81,76,850/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015 In The Case Of M.M Aggarwal Group Of Cases. The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered In The Search U/S 132(1) Of The It Act. During The Course Of Search Carried Out At Different Premises Of M.M. Aggarwal Group, Documents, Data Storage Devices, Etc. Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. 2.1. The A.O. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Company Has Received Share Capital & Share Premium Of Rs.4,87,99,855/- Including Share Premium Of Rs.4,61,62,025/- On Account Of Issue Of 263783 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- Each At A Premium Of Rs.175/-.

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)

…ssessee. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) being in accordance with law should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. He also relied on following decisions. 1. CIT vs., Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 45 DTR 281 (Del.). 2. PCIT vs., M/s. Pranidhi Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 2018-TIOL-622-HC- DEL-IT. 3. CIT vs., Ganeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd., 2013-TiOL-96-HC-Del-IT. 4. CIT vs., Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 2012-TIOL-236-HC-Del.- IT. 5. CIT vs., Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., 2011-TIOL-69-HC-Del.-IT 19 6. CIT vs., Pratham Projects & Finlease Ltd., ITA.638/2010 Delhi…

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 3596 & 3597/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2013-14) DCIT – 14(3)(1) v. M/s. Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt. Ltd., 401, Rupa Plaza, Above IDBI Bank Room No. 455, 4th Floor Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar(E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400077 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR7176F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shankarlal Jain Department by : Shri T. Shankar Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 3596 & 3597/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2013-14) DCIT – 14(3)(1) v. M/s. Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt. Ltd., 401, Rupa Plaza, Above IDBI Bank Room No. 455, 4th Floor Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar(E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400077 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR7176F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shankarlal Jain Department by : Shri T. Shankar Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR…

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

…of the shareholder and their identity was not in dispute, it was for the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry with the investors about their capacity to invest the amount in shares. (6) CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2010] 194 Taxman 43/ [2011] 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) Once the Assessee proves the identity of creditors / share applicants, by either furnishing their PAN or income —tax assessment numbers, and shows genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, onus of proof would shift to revenue. (7) CIT v. Creative World Telefil…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 267, 268, 269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R PER S.…

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 267, 268, 269 & 270/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Aravind Hanjarimal Jain v. ACIT – 31(1) 23/26, Vijay Vills Jawahar Nagar Kautilya Bhavan S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400062 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAPJ9738Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jain Dixit Department by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R PER S.…