CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal

126 ITR 446High Court1980#3861 most cited

What is CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal authority for?

If an assessee fails to explain the source of a sum of money received or fails to prove that the receipt is not income or is exempt from tax, the Assessing Officer is entitled to treat the amount as taxable income.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal · onus of proof · unexplained income · source of funds · taxable income · cash credits · share application money · addition to income · CIT vs Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 31paper companyshare capital and share premiumsection 251(2)source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 251(1)(a)live linkadmission of additional evidenceshare application moneyentry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…lain that the amount received was not income and having failed to give any evidence regarding the source of this amount, the AO was entitled to treat this amount as taxable income. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of CIT vs. Lachhman Das Oswal 126 ITR 446 (P&H) in this case the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "...the matter has since been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT[1963] 50 ITR I, wherein it was held (p. 4): " ... that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liabil…

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…lain that the amount received was not income and having failed to give any evidence regarding the source of this amount, the AO was entitled to treat this amount as taxable income. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of CIT vs. Lachhman Das Oswal 126 ITR 446 (P&H) in this case the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "...the matter has since been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT[1963] 50 ITR I, wherein it was held (p. 4): " ... that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liabil…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. NARENDRA SAMPATLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 688/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Narendra Sampatlal Bafna Bafna Tyre and Auto, Vs. Ujwal Complex, Station Road, Ahmednagar – 414001 PAN: AAVPB7561N (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.25/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Narendra Sampatlal Bafna ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Bafna Tyre and Auto, Vs. Ujwal Complex, Station Road, Ahmednagar – 414001 PAN: AADCV5473G (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prasad Bhandari Department by : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT…

ITO WARD - 14(1), NEW DELHI vs. KAKA SERVICES PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ing judicial pronouncements that in the absence of adequate explanations by the assessee who has failed to discharge its onus, the A.O. is entitled to make the additions: • Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR1(SC). • CIT Vs Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446(P&H). • Nanak Chandra Laxman Dass Vs. CIT (1982) 140 ITR 151(AII). • R Dalmia Vs. CIT (1976) 113 ITR 522(Del). • CIT Vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1968) 72 ITR 194(SC). 5.4 It has been held in the following judicial citations that when the assessee company fails to discharge its onus, the A.O. is within his legitimate right to make an additi…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…82 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj) affirmed by Han'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC) (xxxviii) Mc.Dowell & Co., Ltd V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad V. Madhusudan Rao (2015) 57 (…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…82 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj) affirmed by Han'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC) (xxxviii) Mc.Dowell & Co., Ltd V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad V. Madhusudan Rao (2015) 57 (…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…82 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj) affirmed by Han'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC) (xxxviii) Mc.Dowell & Co., Ltd V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad V. Madhusudan Rao (2015) 57 (…

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5527/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 5397/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 510/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

LANDSKY REAL ESTATES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 509/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, GHAZIABAD

ITA 6401/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 5974/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

M/S GLOBUS REAL INFRA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2920/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STAR LIGHT CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6070/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERSTAR AGENCY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5832/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5831/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 5744/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal (126 ITR 446) — Cited in 30 Judgments | BharatTax