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

The Central Circle, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunil Kumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 349/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…essee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made o…

The ACIT, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunilkumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 348/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…essee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made o…

The ACIT, Kollam vs. Sri.P. Sunil Kumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 347/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…essee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made o…

Shri Vijay Arora, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3881/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2009-10 Sh. Vijay Arora Acit, Circle 1(1) C/O Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, Adv. Hsiidc Building Vs. Opp. Jain Mandir Vanijya Nikunj Main Bazar Udyog Vihar Ballabgarh Gurgaon Faridabad 121 004

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

…rt in case of CIT vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 361 ITR 10, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlly reported in (2014) 366 ITR 232, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court-Jaipur Bench, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 217 are distinguishable on facts, as in all these cases, assessee therein provided most of the details regarding parties like PAN numbers, confirmation letters, complete address proof, copies of bank statement of the parties, ITA No. 3881/Del/2015 AY 2009-10 Shri Vijay Arora copies of bank account of assessee therein, which was sufficient in order t…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133ASection 68

…ness of the depositors. Hence, the addition u/s. 68 cannot be made" Sir, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee's case is identical to this case and all the facts of the above cases are also identical. In the case of C.I.T. v. Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj), the Hon'ble High Court held in the head notes as under: (which is identical to the facts of assessee's case) Three things are required to be proved by the recipient of money, Le. (1) identity of the creditor; (2) capacity of the creditor to advance money; and (3) genuineness of the transaction. Held, dismissing the appeal, that all cash cr…

Sri. H.C. Mahadevaiah, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1845/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 234Section 40

…Reliance was placed by him on the following judicial pronouncements along with the submission that all the loans were received by way of account payee cheques. A) Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO ([2008] 219 CTR 571) (Rajasthan) B) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal ([2014] 366 ITR 217) (Rajasthan) C) CIT Vs. DeenDayal Choudhary ([2017] 293 CTR 468) (Rajasthan) D) ACIT Vs. Shri Abhishek Agarwal in ITA No. 835/LKW/2014 He submitted copy of all these judgements. As against this, ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 5. Thereafter the learned. AR of assessee submitted that the next issue involved in this ap…

Chandraprakash Paharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6442/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

…on u/s 68 of the Act without making further enquiries to disprove the case of the assessee. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the following case laws:-  CIT Vs. Varinder Rawlley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H)  CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj)  CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del)  DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 9. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished the financial statements and proved the source of the cash credits. He submitted that in the following cases, it has been held that the source of sources need not be proved by the…

Bharat Bhushan Gupta, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7268/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B.R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…t of loan to the appellant, by recovering the amount due from sundry debtors and cash in hand etc. as were appearing in statement of affairs of the lender as on 31.03.2013. 7. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- i. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [366 ITR 217] (Raj.) ii. CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh [147 Taxmann 0018] (All) iii. Sushma Gupta vs. ITO [43 CCH 0103] (Del ITAT) iv. CIT vs. Mark Hospital (P) Ltd. 373 ITR 115 (Mad.) v. DCIT vs. Ramdeo Kumar Chitlangia (2004) 23 CCH 0014 (Jodh. Trib) 5 7. In his rival submissions, the learned DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further…

M/S Anjani Associates, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 68

…itors. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Metachem Industries, (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP). (ii) CIT vs. Abdul Aziz, (2012) 251 CTR 58 (C.G.). (iii) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). (iv) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal, (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.). (v) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO, (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj.). (vi) ITO vs. Shri Koushal Agarwal, ITA No.220/BLPR/2010 (ITAT Raipur). (vi) ITO vs. Gauram Prasad Nishad, ITA No.101/BLPR/2012 (ITAT Raipur). (viii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava, 208 taxmann.com 35. 12. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6099/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2012-13) DCIT(CC)-1(3) M/s. Jainam Investments Vs. Room No. 905 11-A/5th Floor, Rockside Old CGO Building Appartment, Walkeshwar Annexe, M.K.Road Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAHFJ 1230A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari Department by Shri Abhijit Patankar Date of Hearing 17.7.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.8.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) : The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 28.7.2016 pa…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilip Chimanlal Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7079/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Virendar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya
Section 132

…807 (SC); 6) Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj); 7) CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevikhadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom); 8) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd. [2012] 51 SOT 234; 9) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H); 10) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Balkiwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj); 11) CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del); 12) CIT vs. Samtelcolor Ltd. 64 DTR 46; and 13) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxmann 213 18. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under: 6.3.24 Hence, it is to be inferred that in a case where the assesse has supplied all possible information…

Jitendra M Kitavat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7049/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…elied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Construction P L (2013) 215 Taxman 12(Mag) (Raj) viii) M/s Rushabh Enterprise V/s ACIT (Mum) WP 167/2015 and other three appeals ix) Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) x)…

ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jitendra Madanlal Kitawat (HUF), Mumbai

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7100/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…elied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Construction P L (2013) 215 Taxman 12(Mag) (Raj) viii) M/s Rushabh Enterprise V/s ACIT (Mum) WP 167/2015 and other three appeals 7047/Mum/2016&7100/Mum/2016 Jitendra M. Kitavat (HUF) ix) Andam…

DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Crown Consultants (P) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 717/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40Section 68

…assessee are reproduced below: 1. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. CIT vs. M/s Mark Hospital (P) Ltd. In ITA Appeal No. 968 of 2014 3. CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd. (2014) 40 CCH 0272 (Ahd Trib) 4. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) 5. CIT vs. Shamilar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2014) TAMAN 0138 (Allahabad) 6. Sarjan Corporation vs. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 0130 Ahd Trib. 7. ACIT vs. Sanjay M. Jhaveri (2015) 43 CCH 0370 Mum Trib. 8. Arceli Reality Ltd. vs. ITO (2017) 50 CCH 0154 Mum Trib. 9. ACIT vs. Claridges Investments & Finances P. Ltd. (2017) 26 CCH 0437 Mum Trib. 7. We have…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhiwadi vs. Shri Satish Kumar, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 637/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80C

…given in Para 6.5 of the order, pages 7-9. He relied on the following case laws: 1. CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) (HC) 3. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC) 4. CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) (HC) 5. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) 6. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) (HC) 7. Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) (HC) In view of above, the addition made by the AO is rightly deleted by the L…

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Champalal D. Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2556/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…ss of cash credit, i.e., he had discharged his burden of proof. AO did not make any attempt to discharge his burden of proof to rebut the evidences produced by the assessee. No addition can be sustained. 7.3.13 In the case of CIF v. Jai 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 acc…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1071/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…elied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Construction P L (2013) 215 Taxman 12(Mag) (Raj) viii) M/s Rushabh Enterprise V/s ACIT (Mum) WP 167/2015 8 and other three appeals ix) Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC)…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1070/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…elied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Construction P L (2013) 215 Taxman 12(Mag) (Raj) viii) M/s Rushabh Enterprise V/s ACIT (Mum) WP 167/2015 8 and other three appeals ix) Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC)…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…elied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Construction P L (2013) 215 Taxman 12(Mag) (Raj) viii) M/s Rushabh Enterprise V/s ACIT (Mum) WP 167/2015 8 and other three appeals ix) Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC)…

ACIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4946/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…elied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Construction P L (2013) 215 Taxman 12(Mag) (Raj) viii) M/s Rushabh Enterprise V/s ACIT (Mum) WP 167/2015 8 and other three appeals ix) Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC)…