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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Kulwant Rai?

142 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kulwant Rai (291 ITR 36), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kulwant Rai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 69A, Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 69, Section 132.

CIT v. Kulwant Rai (291 ITR 36)

Shri Gun Nidhan Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1251/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1251/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Gun Nidhan Singh, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 3, Telephone Colony, Tonk Road, Ward-2(3), Jaipur. Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abgps 9249 E Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 05/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69A

…ability of the income in the current year but wrongly ignored the availability of the income though admitted and assessed of the preceding years.” 5. Supporting Case Laws: (i) CIT v/s P.V. Bhoopathy (2006) 205 CTR 495 (Mad) held (ii) CIT vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) para 16-17 (iii) Anand Prakash Soni v/s DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 97 (Jd) para 5-6 (iv) Shivcharan Dass vs. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 0263 (P&H) 6. The various case laws cited before the ld. CIT(A) strongly and directly supporting the case of the appellant, were completely ignored by the ld. CIT(A) in as much as he is not whispered a single word there…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Ganesh Plantations Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah alongwithFor Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ose sheet can at the most be termed as "dumb document" which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and-could not relied upon and made the basis of addition. 31. In the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 the ruling given in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been relied upon wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held " even though Income Tax Authorities including the Assessing Officer has unfettered discretion and not strictly bound by the rules and pleadings as well as materials on record and is l…

Ganesh Plantations Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2200/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah alongwithFor Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ose sheet can at the most be termed as "dumb document" which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and-could not relied upon and made the basis of addition. 31. In the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 the ruling given in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been relied upon wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held " even though Income Tax Authorities including the Assessing Officer has unfettered discretion and not strictly bound by the rules and pleadings as well as materials on record and is l…

Sh. Kirpal Singh, Kapurthala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

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

ITA 167/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.167/Asr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sh. Kirpal Singh, Vs. Ito, Kapurthala-1, S/O Ravel Singh, Kapurthala H.No.644, Guru Nanak Nagar, Kapurthala स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Bsyps 8252 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR

Section 143(1)Section 69A

…page no. 20 &21). It is further submitted that the assessing officer has given comments just for the purpose of making justifying the addition. We would like to draw your attention to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai at 291 ITR 36 wherein it was held that in the absence of any material that the cash was spent by the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the addition was not sustainable. The Rajasthan High Court has in the case of CIT vs. Nanalal Teli reported at 220 CTR 186 held that in the absence of any material that the said amount was spent, the investmen…

M/S. Splendor Landbase Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3533/Del/2010 stands allowed

ITA 1508/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No.1508/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner Splendor Forum, 5Th Floor, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jasola District Centre, Circle-9(1), New Delhi- 110025. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.3533/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner F-38/2, Splendor House Of Income Tax, Okhla Industries Area, Vs. Circle-9(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…he assessment order. 2. That the impugned copy of agreement is not signed on behalf of the assessee and therefore, it has no evidentiary value in the eye of law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del). Consequently, the alleged agreement could not be treated as a evidence against the assessee. Hence, no addition could be made solely on the basis of the alleged agreement. 3. That the presumption raised by the lower authorities against the assessee to the effect that the said agreement belong to assessee is illegal since presumption, if an…

M/S. Splendor Landbase Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3533/Del/2010 stands allowed

ITA 1507/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No.1508/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner Splendor Forum, 5Th Floor, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jasola District Centre, Circle-9(1), New Delhi- 110025. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.3533/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner F-38/2, Splendor House Of Income Tax, Okhla Industries Area, Vs. Circle-9(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…he assessment order. 2. That the impugned copy of agreement is not signed on behalf of the assessee and therefore, it has no evidentiary value in the eye of law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del). Consequently, the alleged agreement could not be treated as a evidence against the assessee. Hence, no addition could be made solely on the basis of the alleged agreement. 3. That the presumption raised by the lower authorities against the assessee to the effect that the said agreement belong to assessee is illegal since presumption, if an…

Neeta Breja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyneeta Breja, Vs. Ito, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-22(4), Cas, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ahmpb3154D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 69

…ch and every entry reconciled with the complete bank statement. He further referred to the explanation of the assessee submitted before the lower authorities. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Kulwant rai 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that that the orders of the assessing officer as well as the Commissioner of income tax are completely silent as to for what purposes the earlier withdrawals would have been spent and therefore he submitted that is no material has been relied upon by the AO on the Commissioner of income tax appeal to support the vi…

M/S Dra Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 781/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271DSection 68

…r Rs. 1,09,10,735/- and Rs. 76,23,440/- respectively in Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12. Reliance was placed on two judicial pronouncements. a) PCIT Vs. Talwalkars Fitness Club, (2018) 409 ITR 37 (Bom) b) CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai, (2007) 291 ITR 36 (High Court of Delhi). The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we find that the whole allegation is on the basis of these two agreements in question which are available on pages 31 to 36 and 37 to 42 of the paper book. This is true that in both these agreements, it…

M/S Dra Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 780/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271DSection 68

…r Rs. 1,09,10,735/- and Rs. 76,23,440/- respectively in Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12. Reliance was placed on two judicial pronouncements. a) PCIT Vs. Talwalkars Fitness Club, (2018) 409 ITR 37 (Bom) b) CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai, (2007) 291 ITR 36 (High Court of Delhi). The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we find that the whole allegation is on the basis of these two agreements in question which are available on pages 31 to 36 and 37 to 42 of the paper book. This is true that in both these agreements, it…

Birendra Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019