CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

…m any other 8 M/s R & Business Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports th…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

…is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the 47 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports th…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

…show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove 9 Shreedham Builders satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports th…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

…lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More 24 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as…

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

…ies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga 41 Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Raw…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NO.369 /Mum/2017 Assessment Year-2013-14 Anil Chhaganlal Jain, ACIT-18(1), Room No.13, 02nd Floor, 04th Floor, बनाम/ Bhagwan Bhavan, Earnest House, Vs. 15, Dadi Santuk Lane, Mumbai JSS Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400002 PAN No.AAAPJ7018F (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2013-14 Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), ACIT-18(1), Room No.13, 02nd Floor,…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NO.369 /Mum/2017 Assessment Year-2013-14 Anil Chhaganlal Jain, ACIT-18(1), Room No.13, 02nd Floor, 04th Floor, बनाम/ Bhagwan Bhavan, Earnest House, Vs. 15, Dadi Santuk Lane, Mumbai JSS Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400002 PAN No.AAAPJ7018F (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2013-14 Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), ACIT-18(1), Room No.13, 02nd Floor,…

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Ram Textiles, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

…n lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the ca…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…n lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the ca…

Prashant Toraskar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Prashant Toraskar Asst. Cit-25(1), बनाम/ 101, 1St Floor, Sunflower Chs, Mumbai St. Francis Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt 5707 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun Ghia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.6.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 07.3.2013. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Is Explained By Way Of An Affidavit Dated 11.4.2016 By The Appellant As Caused Under The Bona Fide Impression Of Having Been Filed In Time; He Being Engaged In Identifying A Counsel For Advice & Representation Before The Tribunal And, Thus, In Filing The Appeal, Resulting In It Being

…nue to show if the credit is from a particular source: 1) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); 2) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938(SC); 3) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); 4) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); 3 Prashant Toraskar vs. Asst. CIT 5) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and 6) A. Govindarjulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, the burden to prove the nature and source of the credit/de…

Vijay Jayantilal Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvijay Jayantlal Choksi, 3 Satyam Building, 1St Floor, Juhutara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 Pan:Aajpc 7858B ... Appellant Vs.

…documentary evidence to prove these conditions. To strengthen the view of the reliance is placed on the following decision. (a) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194(SC) (c) CIT vs. Ganapati Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) CIT vs. M.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumat Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) In view of the facts and circumstances and various court decisions on this issue, it is held that the appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of unsecure…