CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao

370 ITR 212High Court2015#4581 most cited

What is CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao authority for?

A firm is not required to explain the source of income of its partners concerning their capital contribution to the firm. Such contributions form the substratum of the firm's business and cannot be added to the firm's income.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao · Section 68 · capital contribution · partners capital · firm's income · unexplained cash credit · source of income · substratum of business · preponderance of probability

Also reported as

57 Taxmann.com 373

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionsection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)joint development agreementjdasection 158bbsection 31preponderance of probabilitystatement under section 132(4)section 153c(1)block periodsection 69b

Judgments citing CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao

The ITO, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Gajanand Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 951/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri R.B. Tank, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Parekh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 951 /Ahd/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 The ITO, Gajanand Developers, Ward-4(2)(2), 1, Siddhi Vinayak Ahmedabad Vs Society-2, R.C. (Appellant) Technical Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad-380061 PAN: AALFG1063C (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri R.B. Tank, A.R. Revenue by: Ms. Pooja Parekh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 25-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 14-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against th…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 577/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ers only. These deposits could in no case be the income of the assessee-firm because the firm started its business after the credits had been made its books.” 7.7 Similarly, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao and others [2015] 370 ITR 212 (T&AP), In the case 16 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 of ITO v. Gowthami Builders in ITA Nos. 314/Viz/2016 & 392/Viz/2017 & ors dated 14.03.2018, the Visakhapatnam Bench of ITAT has decided the issue against the Revenue. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court is reproduced…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ers only. These deposits could in no case be the income of the assessee-firm because the firm started its business after the credits had been made its books.” 7.7 Similarly, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao and others [2015] 370 ITR 212 (T&AP), In the case 16 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 of ITO v. Gowthami Builders in ITA Nos. 314/Viz/2016 & 392/Viz/2017 & ors dated 14.03.2018, the Visakhapatnam Bench of ITAT has decided the issue against the Revenue. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court is reproduced…

Smt. Madhu, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 872/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ITA NO.872/Del/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 872/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2002-2003 SMT. MADHU, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), W/O SHRI VIKRAM SINGH, MEERUT C/O VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT (PAN: AFEPR6648L) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. V.K. Goel, Adv. Department by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: Date of Hearing: 23 Date of Hearing: Date of Hearing:…

Majestic Exports, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3072/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. Krishnamurthy, IRS, CIT
Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 8

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) M/s. Majestic Exports, The Joint Commissioner of No.9, College Road, Vs Income Tax, Tirupur 641 602 Tirupur Range, Tirupur [PAN: AAEFM 8827F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respond…

Majestic Exports, Tiruppur vs. JCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1336/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. Krishnamurthy, IRS, CIT
Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 8

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) M/s. Majestic Exports, The Joint Commissioner of No.9, College Road, Vs Income Tax, Tirupur 641 602 Tirupur Range, Tirupur [PAN: AAEFM 8827F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respond…