CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.

208 ITR 465High Court1994#168 most cited

What is CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

427

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. · Section 68 · cash credit · burden of proof · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · unexplained money · confirmatory letters · banking channel transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 1961 Section 131

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor paper company source of source share capital and share premium live link share application money entry operator section 251(1)(a)addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction addition under section 68 borrowed satisfaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3866/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3865/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3864/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3858/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3857/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3856/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3855/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Sejal Export (India), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…judicial precedents having bearing on the issue under adjudication. It is now well-settled that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases [178 CTR (Raj) 420 and 186 CTR (MP) 718]. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been ab…

Anusha Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Anusha Trading Private Ito 9(1)(3), Mumbai. Limited, Nityanand Sadan, Plot- बिधम/ 133, Bardwadi, Cross Lane, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahca5317L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ito 9(1)(3), M/S Anusha Trading Private Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Limited, Nityanand Sadan, Plot- बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 133, Bardwadi, Cross Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400058 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahca5317L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tion money and share premium by cheques could not be construed as sacrosanct evidence. The ld. D.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal). It was further submitted by the ld. D.R that the assessee had also failed to substantiate the creditworthiness of the said respective companies. It was further averred by the ld. D.R that the assessee could not justify the basis for charging of the high share premium. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the ld. D…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…in the agreement itself. Our attention was invited to paper book pages 43, 44 and 47. In reply, the Ld. CIT-DR, contended that it is a case of abnormal share premium. He relied upon the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) and CIT vs Vir Bhan & Sons 273 ITR 206 (P & H). 4 M/s Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, it is our bounded duty to analyze section 147 of the Act also, which is reproduced hereunder:- "147. Income escaping assessment.—…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kunal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2343/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kambleacit Vs Umesh Pharmaceuticals Central Circle-6, (Erstwhile Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle) C-30, Room No. 364, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Panchsheel Enclave Centre, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Aaacu7237L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Kunal Medicare, Central Circle-6, (Erstwhile C-30, Central Circle) Panchsheel Enclave Room No. 364, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara New Delhi Centre, Jhandewalan Extension Aadck3300M New Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 132Section 133(6)

…TA No. 335 of 2009)(Allahabad) 4. CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 Taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) 5. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P). Ltd (361 ITR 258) 6. CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd [1995]82 Taxman 31 (Calcutta)/ [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta)/[1994] 121 CTR 20 (Calcutta) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly considered this issue and passed a reasoned order. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the seized document is a letter of M/s. Patliputra Shoppers Plaza Ltd. addressed to the assess…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Umesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2342/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kambleacit Vs Umesh Pharmaceuticals Central Circle-6, (Erstwhile Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle) C-30, Room No. 364, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Panchsheel Enclave Centre, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Aaacu7237L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Kunal Medicare, Central Circle-6, (Erstwhile C-30, Central Circle) Panchsheel Enclave Room No. 364, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara New Delhi Centre, Jhandewalan Extension Aadck3300M New Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 132Section 133(6)

…TA No. 335 of 2009)(Allahabad) 4. CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18 Taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR 187) 5. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P). Ltd (361 ITR 258) 6. CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd [1995]82 Taxman 31 (Calcutta)/ [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta)/[1994] 121 CTR 20 (Calcutta) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly considered this issue and passed a reasoned order. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the seized document is a letter of M/s. Patliputra Shoppers Plaza Ltd. addressed to the assess…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix.…

Sh. Abhimanyu Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip SinghFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…their creditworthiness/ investments; and (Hi) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise." 10.2 In the case of CIT Vs Prescision Finance P. LTD. (Cal)208 ITR 465, K.C.N. Chandrasekhar Vs AC IT (ITAT.Bang) 66 TTJ 355, CIT Vs United Commercial & industrial Co.(P) ltd.(Cal)187 ITR. "It is necessary for the assessee to prove prima face the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof includes proof of the identity of his creditor, the capacity of such creditor to advance the…

Ansh Merchandise P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6458/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private Dcit 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 V. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private DCIT 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 v. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCN8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri. Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख /…

Jitendra M Kitavat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7049/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ डी डी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई डी डी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“D” Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , संदीप गोसांई एवं संदीप गोसांई संदीप गोसांई, , , , "याियक संदीप गोसांई "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member and Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AYs: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"…

ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jitendra Madanlal Kitawat (HUF), Mumbai

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7100/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ डी डी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई डी डी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“D”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, संदीप गोसांई, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य संदीप गोसांई सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं संदीप संदीप गोसांई गोसांई "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"…

Acg Arts & Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1238/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Shri R.P.Meena

Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(iii)Section 143(3)

…y the assessee were not proved. The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., 10 ITA No.1238/Mum/2012, (A.Y. 2006-07) ITA No.3778/Mum/2012, (A.Y. 2007-08) 208 ITR 465 (Cal), for the proposition that a transaction could not be said to be genuine merely because the payments have been made by account payee cheques. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant, the case made out by the Assessing Officer is that the purchase of paintings by the assessee is unproved. Factually speaking, the…