CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners

18 DTR 121High Court2009#7302 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 271AACSection 68

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionsection 256(1)section 256section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 116joint development agreementjdasection 158bbsection 31preponderance of probabilitystatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners

DCIT, CIRCLE-43(1), CIVIC CENTRE vs. HART TRAVELS AND REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS LLP, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3543/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary, N.C. Roy, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 271A

…l [2007] 291 ITR 232 [Madras High Court] iv) CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Road & Others [Hon'ble Telangana & AP High Court] v) CIT Vs. Metal and Metals of India [2007] 208 CTR 457 [Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court] vi) CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna & Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 [Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court] vii) CIT Vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR160 [Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court] viii) M/s Ambika Enterprises ITA No. 31/DEL/2020 order dated 21.07.2023 10. Per contra, the ld DR vehemently argued that with respect to funds from Tarun Malhotra, the explanation of funds provided to the assessee are from loan of 50…

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 195/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…n the case of Jaiswal Motor (supra) is being constantly followed by this court in the subsequent decisions. Reference can be made to Surendra Mohan Seth v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 239 (All). 22. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view." 27. Section 68 requires the Assessing Officer to satisfy itself of the source of the credit and if during the course of enquiry undertaken, the entries are found to be not genuine then the sum represented by such credit entry is to be added as income of the assessee. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer thu…

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 194/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…n the case of Jaiswal Motor (supra) is being constantly followed by this court in the subsequent decisions. Reference can be made to Surendra Mohan Seth v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 239 (All). 22. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view." 27. Section 68 requires the Assessing Officer to satisfy itself of the source of the credit and if during the course of enquiry undertaken, the entries are found to be not genuine then the sum represented by such credit entry is to be added as income of the assessee. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer thu…

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 164/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…n the case of Jaiswal Motor (supra) is being constantly followed by this court in the subsequent decisions. Reference can be made to Surendra Mohan Seth v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 239 (All). 22. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view." 27. Section 68 requires the Assessing Officer to satisfy itself of the source of the credit and if during the course of enquiry undertaken, the entries are found to be not genuine then the sum represented by such credit entry is to be added as income of the assessee. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer thu…

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 8.2 PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos…

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

ITA 414/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) 8.2 We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not constitute incriminating material. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of th…

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

ITA 175/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) 8.2 We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not constitute incriminating material. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of th…

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 8.2 PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos…

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

ITA 167/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) 8.2 We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not constitute incriminating material. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of th…

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…n the case of Jaiswal Motor (supra) is being constantly followed by this court in the subsequent decisions. Reference can be made to Surendra Mohan Seth v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 239 (All). 22. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view." 27. Section 68 requires the Assessing Officer to satisfy itself of the source of the credit and if during the course of enquiry undertaken, the entries are found to be not genuine then the sum represented by such credit entry is to be added as income of the assessee. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer thu…

CLAVECON INDIA P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1908/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…n the case of Jaiswal Motor Finance (supra) is being constantly followed by this Court in the subsequent decisions. Reference can be made to Surendra Mohan v. CIT [1996]221 ITR 239 (All.) 19. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna & Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 has also taken similar view. 20. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the unexplained cash credit recorded in the assessee's book be added in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that there was no material before the Tribunal in holdin…

CLAVECON INDIA P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1907/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…n the case of Jaiswal Motor Finance (supra) is being constantly followed by this Court in the subsequent decisions. Reference can be made to Surendra Mohan v. CIT [1996]221 ITR 239 (All.) 19. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna & Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 has also taken similar view. 20. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the unexplained cash credit recorded in the assessee's book be added in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that there was no material before the Tribunal in holdin…

DARSHIT DEVELOPERS ,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 471/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.471/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Darshit Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, C/O Kashmiraben Shaileshbhai Valsad Room No.204/Palak Vs. Patel/ Bhagwati Bunglowes / Arcade, Near Pali Hill, Tithal Maninagar Society, Tithal Cross Road, Valsad-396001 Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfd 5807 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 07.07.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Ignoring The Fact & Law That Incorrect Information Received From Ddit[Inv.] Does Not Give Jurisdictional To The A.O For Invoking Reassessment Proceedings Us/ 147 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld Addition Of Partner’S Capital Of Rs.12,50,000/- [Shilpaben Shah] As Well As Another Partner’S Capital Rs.12,50,000/- [Nipaben Shah] + Total Rs.25,00,000/- Ignoring The Fact That There Was No Business Activity Of Firm In The Year Under Assessment As Well As Partner’S Capital Contribution Cannot Be Treated As Income Of The Firm Considering Facts Of Appellant’S Case.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ase of CIT vs. M. Venkateswara Rao and other [2015] 370 ITR 212 (T&AP) v) Punjab & Haryana High Court: in CIT vs. Metal and Metals of India (2007) 208 CTR 457 (P&H) vi) Rajasthan High Court: the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view. vii) Madhya Pradesh High Court” Commissioner of Income Tax v. Metachem Industries [2001] 245 ITR 160 (MP) and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden was on the ae to satisfactorily explain the credit entry in the books of account of the previous year and in a case where satisfactory explanation had b…

ACIT, CIRCLE-51(1), NEW DELHI vs. AMBIKA ENTERPRISES , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by Revenue stand, dismissed

ITA 31/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…e of CIT vs. M. Venkateswara Rao and others [2015]370 ITR 212 (T& AP) v) Punjab & Haryana High Court:- in CIT vs. Metal and Metals of India (2007) 208 CTR 457 (P&H) vi) Rajasthan High Court: the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view. vii) Madhya Pradesh High court:- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Metachem Industries [200] 245 ITR 160 (MP) and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry in the books of account o the previous year and in a case where satisfactory explanation…

M/S KARNI MAA INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD 6 (2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 527/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)
Section 144Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 527/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 cuke M/s Karni Maa International Income Tax Officer, Vs. 64, Ayuwan Singh, Nagar, Ward 6(2), Maharani, Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHFK 6082 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT) l…

CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners (18 DTR 121) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax