CIT v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

…y existing movable or immovable property, the transfer should be voluntary and should be made without consideration of any money.‖ 39. At this stage, we may also refer to the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Vacchani 184 ITR 121 as refereed by the Id. Counsel. The Hon‘ble high Court observed, ―The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid findings. Even though it may be surprising as to how large sums of money are received by a family in India by way of gifts from strangers from abroad, unless there is s…

SH. BALDEV SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Baldev Singh, Vs Dcit, Prop. M/S Madaan Plasstic Industry, Circle 27(1), A-71, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase-I, New Delhi. (Pan: Aarps7097L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri G.S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 9.3.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 8.6.2017 Order

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2005-06 Baldev Singh, vs DCIT, Prop. M/s Madaan Plasstic Industry, Circle 27(1), A-71, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase-I, New Delhi. (PAN: AARPS7097L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.S. Kohli, CA Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, DR Date of hearing: 9.3.2017 Date of pronouncement: 8.6.2017 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-XXVIII, New Delhi vide…

SH. KULJIT SINGH ARORA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…oath, confirmed gifts made, established their old relations with assessee and proved their capacity to make gifts – Whether on facts, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition made by Assessing Officer – Held, Yes. 2. CIT vs. Sunita Vachani (Mrs.) 184 ITR 121 (Del) In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on file record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding. Even though it may be surprising as to how large sums of money are received by a family in India…

RAJ BALA,DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Raj Bala, Village Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mandola Loni, H-5, West 2(2), Ghaziabad Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpr2043K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V.P. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/02/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, For Assessment Year 2006-07, Raising Following Grounds: I. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim That The Learned A.O. Had Wrongly/Illegally Assumed Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S 148. Ii. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 4,08,000/-, Made By The Learned A.O. U/S 69 In The Hands Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2006-07

…discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the donors. 1 he Id. CIT(A) held the gifts to be genuine and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Id. CIT(A). The Hon’ble Court considered the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Sunita Vachani (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del), CIT Vs. R.S. Sibal (2004) 269 ITR 429 (Del) and Sajan Dass & Sons (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Del). The following observations from the decision in the case of R.S. Sibal (supra) were reproduced :- “There is no quarrel with the preposition that a mere identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channels…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. SUDHIR BUDHRAJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…the donor. The Tribunal’s findings are, essentially, findings of fact and there is little scope to interfere with the same unless it is concluded that the findings are perverse in law and/or are not based on any material. In CIT v. Sunita Vachani: (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del) this court held that : “in our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding. Even though it may be surprising as to how large sums of money are…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. SUDHIR BUDHRAJA

…the donor. The Tribunal’s findings are, essentially, findings of fact and there is little scope to interfere with the same unless it is concluded that the findings are perverse in law and/or are not based on any material. In CIT v. Sunita Vachani: (1990) 184 ITR 121 (Del) this court held that : “in our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding. Even though it may be surprising as to how large sums of money are…

Sarita Aggarwal

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Who By Order Dated 27Th February, 1998, Deleted The Addition After Taking On Record Additional Evidence. Revenue On Appeal, Has Succeeded Before 2015:Dhc:1152-Db

…14th November, 2005; CIT versus Mrs. Sunita Vachani, 2015:DHC:1152-DB ITA 133/2003 Page 11 of 14 ITA No.101/1999 (sic, 1989) decided on 5th February, 1990 (reported as [1990] 184 ITR 121 (Del)); CIT versus Orient Enterprises, ITA No.91/1987 (sic), decided on 10th January, 1990 (reported as [1990] 185 ITR 156 (Del)); and, CIT versus Shri Kulwant Rai, ITA No.86/2006 decided on 13th February, 2007 (reported as [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del)), we perceive proceed on their own facts. In R.S. Sibal (supra), it was specifically mentioned…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. ANIL KUMAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI

…ertificate confirming the payment by pay order from the NRE accounts of the two donors and in support of his contention, learned counsel cited two decisions of our own High Court, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunita Vachani (1990) 184 ITR 121 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs.R.S.Sibal (2004) 269 ITR 429. 9. The question to be seen here is as to whether the identity of donors has been established and whether they had the capacity to make such a gift or not. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs.R.S.Sibbal (supra), it has been laid down: “ There is no quarrel with the prep…