CIT v. Kulwant Rai

291 ITR 36High Court2007#713 most cited

What is CIT v. Kulwant Rai authority for?

An assessee can explain cash deposits, including those in bank accounts, by demonstrating sufficient cash balance as per their books of account or from previous cash withdrawals. If the explanation is substantiated and the revenue cannot prove otherwise, the source of deposits is deemed proved, precluding additions under Section 68.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kulwant Rai · Section 68 · Section 115BBE · cash deposits explanation · source of cash deposits · cash book · previous cash withdrawals · unexplained money · onus of proof · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 585210 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 115BBESection 68Section 69Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bccircle ratepreponderance of probabilitysection 2(47)interest u/s 234alack of enquirysection 69bsection 158bsection 158section 48dumb documentssection 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Kulwant Rai

Tarun Muradia, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 848/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132aSection 132tSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt. Ltd. 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 10 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur Kindly refer our WS dated 17.02.2021 filed before ld. AO which is reproduced for reference as under: 1. Regarding loose papers of booking of building…

Singapalli Rajgopal Rao, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(8), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 111/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Singapalli Rajgopal Rao Income Tax Officer 34/A Sundernagar, Udhna- Vs. Ward No.3(2)(8), Surat Navsari Road, Bhestan, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpr 0192 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Tinish Mody, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 27/01/2025 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…om his bank account in the last two years for household expenses. Further, his wife was also earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month through her sewing/stitching activities. The Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the cases of (i) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 ITA No.111/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Singapalli R Rao (Del) (ii) ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Del-Trib.), (iii) Shri Rakesh Suryakant Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai ITA No.709/Mum/2012) and (iv) DCIT vs. Smt. Veena Awasthy (2006) 282 ITR 249 (Del). 5. On the other hand, Ld. SR-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authoriti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Phoola Rani Chadha, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3480/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into bank as explained by the assessee, there was any other purpose it is used by the assessee of these amounts. The tribunal relied on the decision of Delhi High court in case of Kulwant rai in 291 ITR 36. As per various decisions, previous cash withdrawals from bank accounts can be shown by the appellant as source of subsequent cash deposits. Respectfully following above decisions, it is held that the explanation of the appellant that cash was deposited from earlier withdrawals is acceptable. As a result, ground no. 2c is allowed.” 3. The CIT(A)…

Phoola Rani Chadha, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3469/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into bank as explained by the assessee, there was any other purpose it is used by the assessee of these amounts. The tribunal relied on the decision of Delhi High court in case of Kulwant rai in 291 ITR 36. As per various decisions, previous cash withdrawals from bank accounts can be shown by the appellant as source of subsequent cash deposits. Respectfully following above decisions, it is held that the explanation of the appellant that cash was deposited from earlier withdrawals is acceptable. As a result, ground no. 2c is allowed.” 3. The CIT(A)…

Akshat Loyalka, Jaipur vs. Rjn-C-(101)(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1019/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 5Section 69A

…—Findings recorded by the Tribunal are purely findings of fact—There is no reason to interfere with the same—No substantial question of law arises—CIT vs. Pradeep ShantaramPadgaonkar (1983) 143 ITR 785 (MP) relied on” 4.2.2Also refer CIT vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) para 16-17, wherein it was held as under: “Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed income—Cash found during search-Assesseehad withdrawn Rs.2 lakh from bank some time back and there is no material with the Department to show that this money had been spent and was not available with the assessee—Tribunal has found th…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…oved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 5.2.5 In this respect we also rely on the other argument related to rejection of books of accounts as well as taxation of notional income already submitted in para 2.2.11 and 2.…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…oved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 5.2.5 In this respect we also rely on the other argument related to rejection of books of accounts as well as taxation of notional income already submitted in para 2.2.11 and 2.…

Leela Dutt Sharma, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

…nd the Ld. AO did not find anything adverse to reject this explanation, no addition can be made and the onus to prove otherwise falls on the Revenue as per the following judicial precedents: A. Shiv Charan Dass vs CIT126 ITR 263, P&H HC B. CIT vs Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36, Delhi HC C. Shri Rajiv Gupta vs ITO, 123/Chd/2020, Chandigarh ITAT D. ITO vs Deepali Sehgal, 5660/Del/2012, Delhi ITAT E. Pr. CIT vs M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, ITA 69/2021 & CM No. 9322/2021,Delhi HC F. ACIT vs. M/s. Stationery Point India ltd., 1162/MUM/2010, Mumbai ITAT 6.8 Ld AR submitted that the Assessee deposited cash received for retail s…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Lic Building vs. Madhu Chordia, C-Scheme

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1525/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged these facts, submitted by the respondent, and considered them while deleting the addition under the current case.In this regard, we placed our reliance on following case laws:  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the caseof CIT Vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that, admittedly, the assessee had not signed the agreement in question and since he had not signed the agreement, no liability could be attributed qua that that agreement towards him since he was not aparty to the agreement till he had signed the agreement. The mere fact that this agreement was fou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Lic Building vs. Madhu Chordia, C-Scheme

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged these facts, submitted by the respondent, and considered them while deleting the addition under the current case.In this regard, we placed our reliance on following case laws:  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the caseof CIT Vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that, admittedly, the assessee had not signed the agreement in question and since he had not signed the agreement, no liability could be attributed qua that that agreement towards him since he was not aparty to the agreement till he had signed the agreement. The mere fact that this agreement was fou…

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…e strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). And in the present case the ld. AO invoked provision of sec. 115BBE merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law and invoking provision of section 69 invalid ignoring the true and correct facts of the case. The provision of section 69 cannot be made applicable as primary…

Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Pune

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

ITA 1587/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(2)Section 69A

…lth Food (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) d. Govinddas vs. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC) e. CIT vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain vide ITA No.41/JAB/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 order dated 31.10.2022. 11. He also relied on the following decisions: a. CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del) b. DCIT Vs. Smt. Veena Awasthi vide ITA No. 215/LKW/2016, order dated 30.11.2018 c. Neeta Breja Vs ITO vide ITA No.524/Del/2017, order dated 25.11.2019 d. Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. Pvt. Limited Vs. DCIT (2020) Tax Corp (DT) 82042 (HC-MADRAS) e. Kamlesh Kantilal Bhandari Vs ITO vide ITA No.1320/PUN/2016 order dated 29.07.2016 f. ACIT Vs B…

Ritu Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

…dated 29.12.2015. 18-19 5 Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in case of 20-36 ACIT, Circle -1(2) v. Ms/. Serajuddin & Co., ITA No. 39 to 45 of 2022, order dated 15.03.2023. 6 Judgment of Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Shri 37-41 Kulwant Rai, [2007] 291 ITR 36 (DELHI), Date of order – 13.02.2007. 7 Judgment of Hon’ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in case of 42-66 Smt. Suraj Kanwar Devra v. ITO, Ward 2(2), Udaipur, ITA No. 50/Jodh/2021, Date of Order – 23.11.2021. 8 Judgment of Hon’ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in case of 67-85 Smt. Krishna Agarwal v. ITO Ward-1, Pali, ITA No. 53/JODH/2021, Date of Order – 07.09.2021 9…

Printography Systems (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6944/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarprintography Systems V/S. Assistant Commissioner (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. बनाम Of Income Tax, Circle – 13-D, Kurla Industrial Estate, 13(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Narayan Nagar Nss Road, Mumbai - 400020, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - Maharashtra 400 086, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp4900G .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah,CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printography Systems v/s. Assistant Commissioner (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. बनाम of Income Tax, Circle – 13-D, Kurla Industrial Estate, 13(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Narayan Nagar NSS Road, Mumbai - 400020, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - Maharashtra 400 086, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCP4900G .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Shah,CA Respondent by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Dat…

Shalini Jagwayan, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 987/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…oved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. In the case of St. Wilfred Educational Society vs. Pr. CIT (CENTRAL)18th March, 2019 (2019) 55 CCH 0633 JaipurTrib, (2019) 176 ITD 0675 (Jaipur-Trib) it was merely a suspicion g…

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…e strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). And in the present case the ld. AO invoked 37 Jagdish Kumar Arora provision of sec. 115BBE merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law and invoking provision of section 69 invalid ignoring the true and correct facts of the case. The provision of section 69 cannot be m…

ACIT., Central Circle 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 797/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member, Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 153A

…cluding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (supra), Common Cause (A. Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC), CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi High Court) and CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi High Court), the facts of these cases are totally different from the facts of the assessee’s case and cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. Thus, we reject the case laws relied upon by the assessee. 14. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessee could n…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2363/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 69BSection 69C

…endent valuer taken before the purchase of machinery. Reliance was placed on the following propositions: I. That seized material in absence of any corroborative evidence found from the possession of the appellant, cannot form basis for making any addition. i) 291 ITR 36 (Del) CIT v KulwantRai ii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal iii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT v. GirishChaudhary iv) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. VedParkashChaudhary v) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta vi) 383 ITR 320 (Del) CIT v. VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd. vii) 393 ITR 276 (Bom) CIT v. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. viii) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode, Nagpur

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…tion being purely on presumption, surmises and conjectures cannot override the evidences produced by the assessee in this behalf. Reliance is placed on following case laws: (i) CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC). (ii) CIT v. Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36/163 Taxman 585 (Delhi) (iii) Anand Prakash Soni v. Dy. CIT [2007] 12 SOT 17 (Jodh) (URO) 10 Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode (iv) CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570/103 Taxman 382 (SC). In the instant case, as discussed above, the appellant has satisfactorily explained the source of investment, therefore, in such a case there is no justif…

Khoobsoorat Fabrics Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 14(3), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

…that once cash deposits are duly explained from the withdrawals made from the bank account, no adverse inference can be validly drawn: and addition made is illegal, invalid and unsustainable. The assessee seeks to place reliance on the following judgments: i) 291 ITR 36 (Del.) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai (extract at pages 164-165 of Paper Book) ii) 302 CTR 241 (Del) Jaya Agarwal v ITO (extract at pages 165-166 of Paper Book) iii) 121 TTJ 366 (Del.) ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla & Ors (extract at pages 166 of Paper Book) It may be stated here that the aforesaid conclusion was accepted by the revenue and not challenged before…