CIT v. Ms. Mayawati

338 ITR 563High Court2011#1566 most cited

What is CIT v. Ms. Mayawati authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked to make additions if the assessee does not maintain books of account. For this purpose, bank statements or passbooks are not considered 'books of account'.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ms. Mayawati · 338 ITR 563 · Section 68 · books of account not maintained · no addition under Section 68 · bank passbook not books of account · bank statement not books of account · individual assessee no books · cash credit addition · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

12 Taxmann.com 306

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 133(6)Section 148Section 147Section 131Section 143(3)Section 132Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 148bsection 106section 36(1)(ii)section 149(1)(a)bogus share capitalcreditworthiness of the creditorprice riggingsource of sourceaddition under section 68beneficial ownerretracted statementaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Ms. Mayawati

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Appeal in ITA No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad PAN:AEPPP5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -do- -do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -do- -do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -do- -do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AEPPP5729L Assessee by: Shri…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Pujala Mahesh Babu, Ranga Reddy

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Appeal in ITA No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad PAN:AEPPP5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -do- -do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -do- -do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -do- -do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AEPPP5729L Assessee by: Shri…

Naresh Batra, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 281/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, By The Impugned Order, The Appeal Was Dismissed.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ce, bank passbook is not maintained by the assessee, it cannot be considered as assessee’s books of account to invoke the provisions of section 68 of the Act. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati [2011] 338 ITR 563 (Delhi High Court); • Baladin ram vs. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (Supreme Court); • CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay High Court); • Sh. Om Prakash vs. ITO, ITA No.1325/Del/2011, Date of decision: 11.08.2016 (Delhi – Trib.); • Amitabh Bansal vs. ITO [2019] 175 ITD 401 (Delhi – Trib.); & • Dr. Vishan Swqaroop Gupta, vs. ITO, ITA No.…

Sandeep Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward -03, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3887/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
Section 68

…t statement as, it cannot be considered to be books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Therefore, the conditions of section 68 of the Act are not fulfilled. In support of such contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Mayawati [2011] 338 ITR 563 (Delhi High Court); • Baladin ram vs. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (Supreme Court); • CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 67 [Bombay High Court]; • Sh. Om Prakash vs. ITO, ITA No.1325/Del/2011, Date of decision: 11.08.2016 (Delhi – Trib.); • Amitabh Bansal vs ITO [2019] 175 ITD 401 (Delhi – Trib.). 5 ITA No. 3887/Del./2019 5. Learned Departmental R…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view w…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view w…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view w…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view w…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view w…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view w…

Dhani Ram, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2817/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…naccounted receipts and the entire amount cannot be added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Mayawati [2011] 338 ITR 563 (Del.). 5. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied on the Orders of the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee is changing his stand from time to time. He submitted that the assessee before the lower authorities had 15 ITA.No.2817/Del./2019 Shri Dhani Ram, Delhi. stated that the cash deposits were out of cash withdrawal from the bank…

A.Srinivasa Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Sri A.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.48-13-20/1, F.No.Sf2 Ward-1(4) Sri Krishna Sai Residency Visakhapatnam Janaki Rama Street Visakhapatnam [Pan :Adhpa2185Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived" 18. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 [DEL] has held as under: "As the ITAT has come to the conclusion that Section 68 has no applicability to the facts of the present case as the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts. If that be so Section 68 does not apply in this case for the simple mason cheque received from Mr.Pankaj Jain has been deposited in her bank account in thi…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…or under his instructions – Cash Credit for previous year shown in assessee’s bank pass book – not shown in cash book of assessee for that year – cannot be treated as income of that previous year – Income Tax Act, 1961, s.68. b. CIT v. Ms.Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563. c. Smt.Manasi Mahendra Pitkar v. ITO reported in 160 ITD 605 (Mum – Trib.) d. Lokesh Chandrappa v. ITO in ITA No.1254/Bang/2015 dated 09.11.2016 wherein it was held as under – In the light of the above, the appellant submits that provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked on various deposits found credited in the savings bank account of the appe…

Amar Adak, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T.Circle-46, Kolkata

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

ITA 2642/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

…68 of the Act unless the assessee maintains books of account as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi reported in 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 [DEL]. 6.4. An addition u/s 68 of the Act was made on bogus figures which are not true and when no such entries were made in the books of account. In view of the above discussion, we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on facts of this case. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 6.5. On the issue whether an addition in this year can be m…

M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.to., Ward-2(1), Burdman

ITA 501/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice Income Tax Officer, बनाम & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), Aayakar / Vill-Kalsi, P.O. V/S. Bhawan, Court Chotkhanda, P.S. Memari, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan, Pin-713146 713101 [Pan No.Aabcl 6230 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “"स” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL C-COURT” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Lakshmi Narayan Rice Income Tax Officer, बनाम & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), Aayakar / Vill-Kalsi, P.O. V/s. Bhawan, Court Chotkhanda, P.S. Memari, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan, Pin-713146 713101 [PAN No.AABCL 6230 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriya Paul, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respo…

M/S Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

ITA 2020/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 250Section 68

…own fund in its kitty to invest in the assessee company. It would be worthwhile to take note of the observation by Hon’ble Justice A. K. Sikri while delivering the judgment in CIT Vs. Mayawati when His Lordship then was in Hon’ble Delhi High court reported in 338 ITR 563 (Del) observed that – “The capacity of any person does not mean how they earn monthly or annually but the term capacity is a wide term and that can be pursued by how wealthy he is. All the formalities, as per the law are made by the assessee and donors as well.” Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to uphold the action of the Tribunal i…

Balwant Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…e” for the reason that the “bank account" are not the 'books of the assessee". In this regard assessee placed reliance on various decisions which are as follows: i) K.C.C. Software Ltd. and Ors. vs. DIT and Ors. 298 ITR 1 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 iii) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) iv) Shanta Devi vs. CIT 171 ITR 532 (P&H) In view of these submissions, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made of Rs. 2,49,900/- may be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rightly observed that no evidence with regard to the cash deposits made out of a…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…O (2006) 102 TTJ (Dcl- Trib) 665. 3. Mrs. RanjanaKatyal v. Asstt. CIT (2008) 19 (II) ITCT. 507 (Del- Trib) : (2008) 113 TTJ (Del-Trib) 479 4. Smt. SonuAgarwal v. ITO (2009) 28 (II) ITCL 324 (Luck-Trib) : (2009) 29 SOT 478 (Luck-Trib) 5. CIT v. Mayawati (2011) 338 ITR 563 (Del): (2011) 201 Taxman 1 (Del): (2011)243 CTR (Del) 9. 6. CIT v. Anil Kumar (1997) 58 TTJ (Del-Trib) 340 7. Asstt. CIT v. Lucky Pamnami [2011] 9 taxmann.com 146/129 ITD 489 (Mum.) 8. Smt. Veena Bhatia v. Asstt. CIT [ITA Nos.2680 & 2682 /Delhi/2009...(Delhi-Trib.)] 9. Dy. CIT v. AlokGautam[2010] 41 SOT 102 (Luck.), ITAT 10. ITO v. Kailash Chand…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Senorita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5388/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Jagia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 68

…harge of onus u/s. 68 of the Act) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No. 597/2012 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 21.1.2013. Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1494/Kol/2017 of ITAT, Kolkata dated 5.4.2019. CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati 338 ITR 563 (Delhi). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the written submissions/ case laws relied by both the parties. We note that in this case a complaint was received in the Investigation Wing and it has started investigation on 14.8.2008 by issuing a summon u/s.…

Shri Tejraj Simlot C/O- Maharwal & Associates, B-23, 24, City Center Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(5), Jaipur, Ward-4(5)

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

ITA 726/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Smt. Suhani Maharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT) &
Section 139Section 148Section 69A

…well as donor and also prove the genuineness by filing their confirmation as well as affidavits then, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. She has relied upon the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Mayawati 338 ITR 563. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that except a cash flow statement the assessee has not produced any evidence to establish the opening cash in his hand as claimed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has shown loan as well as gift from various persons however, in the absence of any proof of income of donor as well as the loan cr…