CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal

366 ITR 217High Court2014#1360 most cited

What is CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot make an addition under section 68 without conducting further inquiries to disprove the assessee's explanation of the source of cash credits. The assessee is not required to prove the 'source of source'.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal · section 68 · addition under section 68 · source of source · creditworthiness of the creditor · cash credits · unexplained money · assessment procedure · evidence · onus and natural justice · section 142(1) · section 250

Also reported as

224 Taxmann 87

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 153CSection 194-1A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceshell companypermanent account numberpaper companysection 246addition under section 68creditworthiness of the creditorsection 250(4)section 41admission of additional evidenceprincipal commissioner of income-taxshare application money

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal

Prakash Godhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 136/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…Thereafter AO did not bring any of the other facts to the knowledge of assessee. Burden never shifted back to assessee. None of the legal & cogent evidences disproved. CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT vs Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217, 223 & 224 (Raj.) When the assessee discharges initial burden u/s 68, the onus shifts to the AO. If AO assesses the said loan as income of the assessee from undisclosed source, he has to prove either by direct or indirect/circumstantial evidence that the money which the assessee 4 received from creditor actually belong to and was owned by assess…

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

…er failed to invoke the provisions under section 131 of the Act, the Tribunal had rightly concluded that it was sufficient to delete the addition. 17. Identical view has been expressed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also taken the view that the AO is required to make further enquiry if the assessee has furnished all the materials to prove the cash credits. If the AO fails to do so, he is not entitled to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was further held that the mere rejection of evidence without giving reasons is not jus…

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

…er failed to invoke the provisions under section 131 of the Act, the Tribunal had rightly concluded that it was sufficient to delete the addition. 17. Identical view has been expressed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also taken the view that the AO is required to make further enquiry if the assessee has furnished all the materials to prove the cash credits. If the AO fails to do so, he is not entitled to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. It was further held that the mere rejection of evidence without giving reasons is not jus…

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6490/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ssessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders - Whether, on facts, SLP against said order was to be dismissed — Held; yes.” In the case of CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal reported in 366 ITR 217, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan decided that: “It had been claimed by AO that in most of cases, though amount was received by account payee cheque and most of creditors were assessed to Income Tax Act and had even provided their permanent account number but on desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of…

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ssessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders - Whether, on facts, SLP against said order was to be dismissed — Held; yes.” In the case of CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal reported in 366 ITR 217, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan decided that: “It had been claimed by AO that in most of cases, though amount was received by account payee cheque and most of creditors were assessed to Income Tax Act and had even provided their permanent account number but on desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of…

ACIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders $ Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4105/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ssessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders - Whether, on facts, SLP against said order was to be dismissed — Held; yes.” In the case of CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal reported in 366 ITR 217, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan decided that: “It had been claimed by AO that in most of cases, though amount was received by account payee cheque and most of creditors were assessed to Income Tax Act and had even provided their permanent account number but on desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of…

ITO-22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4096/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ssessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders - Whether, on facts, SLP against said order was to be dismissed — Held; yes.” In the case of CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal reported in 366 ITR 217, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan decided that: “It had been claimed by AO that in most of cases, though amount was received by account payee cheque and most of creditors were assessed to Income Tax Act and had even provided their permanent account number but on desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were able ‘to prove source of…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

For Appellant: Shri Karan shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER With Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 ITO, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. PAN : ABJPS 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ…

ACIT, Allahabad vs. M/S Sunsine Infrastate Pvt Ttd, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

ITA 103/ALLD/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 May 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Parveen Godbole,CA
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

…)366 ITR 232(P&H HC) 4. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Shailesh Kumar Rasiklal Mehta , reported in (2014) 224 Taxman 212(Guj. HC) 5. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal , reported in (2014) 366 ITR 217(Raj.. HC) 6. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Tiwari, reported in (2013) 220 Taxman 141(Alld. HC) 7. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Dharmdev Finance Private Limited , reported in (2014) 43 taxman.com 395(Guj. HC) 8. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sur…

M/S. Mahalaxmi Saws Pvt. Ltd., H-39, Road No.2B, Riico Industrial Area, Sirsi Road, Bindayaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

…eted. He also relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Delhi ITAT decision in the case of Phool Singh vs ACIT. ITA No. 2901/Del/2014. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhawani Oil Mills (Raj.) 49 DTR 212 (iii) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (Raj.) 366 ITR 217. (iv) Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (Raj.) 187 Taxman 338 (v) CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 208 Taxman 35 (Gui.) In view of above, it is requested that addition of Rs.21,80,000/- deserves to be deleted.” 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 12. We have considered the rival con…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaizen Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2899/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2899/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.34/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2899/Mum/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Acit-Circle-6(3)(2) बनाम 67,Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane 01 Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.576 / Vs. Dadar, Mumbai-400 014. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aadck-1418-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ness of the transactions by filing the necessary documents. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements. 1. Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj)(HC) [SLP dismissed by SC (2002) 254 ITR (St.) 275] 2. CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.)(HC). 3. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom)(HQ 4. CIT vs. Chandela Trading Co. P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 232 (Cal.)(HC) 5. ACIT v. Sanjay M. Jhaveri (2015) 168 TTJ 751(Mum.)(Trib.) 4.7 Considering the evidence brought on record by the appellant company regarding the loans taken during the year, the explanations furnished a…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…den clearly shifted to the Department to prove to the contrary and when AO failed to invoke the provisions of section 131 of the Act to prove the contrary, it was sufficient reason to delete the addition. 6.3.26 In the case of CIT v. Jal Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj), it was held by the Rajasthan High Court that all the cash creditors were assessed to Income-tax and they provided a confirmation as well as their permanent account number. They had their own respective bank accounts which they had been operating and it was not the claim of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was operating their bank ac…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics & Packaging (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 737/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…garwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat) xiii) Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau) xiv) CIT vs. Dalmia Resorts International (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Del) xv) Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 399 ITR 0425 (Mad) xvi) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) xvii) CIT vs. Shri E.S. Jose (2014) 220 Taxman 0032 (Ker) xviii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del) xix) Mr. Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. ITO 2020 (1) TMI 1153 (BomHC) xx) M/s. Kumar Nirman and Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2020 (3) TMI 340 (KarHC) xxi) ACIT vs. M/s. Jay Enterprise 2019 (4) TMI 1811 (ITAT Rajkot)…

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Ariba Foods (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 736/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…garwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat) xiii) Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau) xiv) CIT vs. Dalmia Resorts International (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Del) xv) Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 399 ITR 0425 (Mad) xvi) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) xvii) CIT vs. Shri E.S. Jose (2014) 220 Taxman 0032 (Ker) xviii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del) xix) Mr. Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. ITO 2020 (1) TMI 1153 (BomHC) xx) M/s. Kumar Nirman and Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2020 (3) TMI 340 (KarHC) xxi) ACIT vs. M/s. Jay Enterprise 2019 (4) TMI 1811 (ITAT Rajkot)…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Famous Vanijya (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 773/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…garwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat) xiii) Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau) xiv) CIT vs. Dalmia Resorts International (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Del) xv) Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 399 ITR 0425 (Mad) xvi) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) xvii) CIT vs. Shri E.S. Jose (2014) 220 Taxman 0032 (Ker) xviii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del) xix) Mr. Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. ITO 2020 (1) TMI 1153 (BomHC) xx) M/s. Kumar Nirman and Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2020 (3) TMI 340 (KarHC) xxi) ACIT vs. M/s. Jay Enterprise 2019 (4) TMI 1811 (ITAT Rajkot)…

Smt. Leela Kothari, Beawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Beawar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1251/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 43CSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1251/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16. cuke Smt. Leela Kothari The Income Tax Officer, Vs. W/o Shri Hemant Kothari, Ward -2, 5, Vinod Nagar, Beawar. Beawar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AHWPK 2451 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri PC Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sm…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…laced on the following judicial pronouncements: i. [2014] 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. ii. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 176 (Gujarat) Smt. Neelamben Gopaldas Agrawal v. ITO iii. [1997] 224 ITR 180 (P&H) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel iv. [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan) CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal v. [2013] 214 Taxman 440 (Allahabad) Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT vi. 103 ITR 344 at 349-350 ( Patna) Saraogi Credit Corporation v CIT vii. 59 ITR 632 at 636 (Assam) TolaRam Daga v cIT viii. 49 ITR 273 at 279 (Mad) S. Hastimal v CIT ix. 151 ITR 150 at 156-157 (Pat) Addl. CIT, Bihar v Hanuman Aggarwal x. 154 ITR 24…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…. [2014] 264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN- HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v/s Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(MAG.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan), CIT v/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) referred above which have been also been followed recently by Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…. [2014] 264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN- HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v/s Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(MAG.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan), CIT v/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) referred above which have been also been followed recently by Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal i…

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…. [2014] 264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN- HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v/s Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(MAG.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan), CIT v/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) referred above which have been also been followed recently by Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal i…