CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain

339 ITR 351High Court2011#945 most cited

What is CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain authority for?

Jewellery found within the CBDT prescribed limits (500g for married women, 250g for unmarried women, 100g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. However, its value can be added as undisclosed income under Section 69B if the taxpayer fails to prove its source.

113

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain · 339 ITR 351 · unexplained jewellery · CBDT Instruction 1916 · jewellery seizure limits · undisclosed investment · Section 69B · Section 115BBE · search and seizure assessment · 500g married women jewellery · 100g men jewellery

Also reported as

235 CTR 568

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 144Section 115BBESection 153ASection 292CSection 132Section 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 144asection 269ssunexplained jewelleryspecified authoritysection 292cblock periodsection 158bsection 153a(1)section 292section 158

Judgments citing CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain

Raju Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6449/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 271A

…wealth-tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250 gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms. per male member of the family, need not be seized. We find that the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 339 ITR 351 (Guj) has held that though the CBDT Circular No.1916 dated 11th May 1994 has been issued for the purpose of non seizure of jewellery during the course of search but unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that source to the extent of jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. 9. In the present case if…

Reena Goel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C. A.; &For Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…e and therefore CBDT has mandated maximum amount of weight of jewellery which would not be questioned with respect to marital status and gender status of the family members. Such is the mandate of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Satya Narain Patni 366 ITR 325; Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam Dass Johri (2014) 41 taxmann.com 295; Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Ratan Vyapari Lal Jain 2 taxmann.com 997, which supports the argument of the ld. AR. Therefore, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of the above CBDT Circular to the assessee and delete the addition t…

Anila Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Anila Rasiklal DCIT-CC 3(1), Mehta, Room No.1924, Flat No.8, 4th Floor, 19th Floor, Vs. New Usha Kiran CHS, Air India Bldg, 150, Midhanukar Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400021 PAN: AAOPM2668L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Vivek Sunil Mehta, Dy. CIT-CC-3(1), Flat No.8, 4th Floor, Cent. Range-3, Ushakiran Co. Op. Hsg. Room No.1924, Vs. Soc, 19th Floor, 150, ML Dhanukar Marg, Air India Bldg,…

Diwakar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result ground no 2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Diwakar Sharma, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Arun Ketan & Associates, 101, Central Circle, Csc, Dda Market, Pushpanjali, New Noida Delhi Pan: Aohps3660K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 260 ITR 249, Hon’ble Madras High Court in 370 ITR 364, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 41 Taxmann.com 295, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in 366 ITR 325, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in 339 ITR 351. In substance all these Hon’ble High Courts have held that jewellery specified under CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1992 is a reasonable quantity which could be not added in the hands of the assessee even though circular is for the purpose of none seizure of jewellery during the course of search. Hon’ble High Courts were also of the view that…

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.182/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 ACIT(Central)-II Shri Nitin Agrawal, Bhopal 1, Mount View Hills, Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal Vs. ( Revenue ) (Respondent ) PAN:ADUPA9906C Assessment Year 2014-15 ACIT(Central)-II M/s S.V. Infra Developers, Bhopal Premier Orchard, Opp. MBHRC, Karnond By Pass Vs. Road, Bhopal ( Revenue ) (Respondent ) PAN:ADUPA9906C Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Respondent by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT…

Mr.Amith Kumar Bethala, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2026/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132

…wellery and hence, it does not mean that the source of investment shall stand explained to that extent. 18. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni (366 ITR 325), wherein it was held that when the jewelleries found during the course of search were within the tolerable limits prescribed by the CBDT in its instructions, no addition was justifiable. Accordingly, the assessee pleaded that the credit @ quantity prescribed by the CBDT should be given to all the family members, i.e., parents, brother’s family a…

Smt. Ranju Sayall, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3927/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

…d 8th July, 2015 ( Mumbai ITAT) 6. DCIT Vs. Shri Haroon Mohd. Unni, ITA No. 463/Mum/2012, order dated 31st January, 2014 (Mumbai ITAT) 7. CIT Vs. Satya Narain Patni, 366 ITR 325, order dated 7th April, 2014 (Rajasthan HC). 8. CIT Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain, 339 ITR 351, order dated 19th July, 2010 (Gujarat HC). 5. He also submitted that the assessee is willing to file necessary document in support of her claim of jewellery received at the time of marriage and on various occasions. Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that issue in dispute may be restored 6 ITA No.3927/Del./2015 back to the file of the…

Sh. Raju Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 832/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 153B

…the aforesaid CBDT instruction is considered alongwith the explanation provided, the jewellary found stands fully explained and no addition is called for. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (339 ITR 351 (Guj). Ld DR on the other hand pointed to the findings of AO and observations made by CIT(A). He further submitted that the assessee has not filed the return of wealth and CIT(A) after considering the factual position has granted relief. She therefore submitted that no interference to the order of CIT(A) is called for. 8. We have heard the rival…

Smt. Gangaben Jivraj Desai, Mehsana vs. The DCIT, Cen. Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2294/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2294/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R
Section 69B

…rder. It is seen that the A.O has already given credit to the appellant in respect of the gold and silver jewellery found at her premises during search, in the light of the decision of the Hon. Gujarat high Court in the case of CIT vs Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 235 CTR 568. The impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found during the search. The appellant in her submissions has merely stated that she was a part of a large joint family and that the jewelry was not hers alone. However, since the appellant's explanation is not corroborated with any documentary evidences, the addition of Rs.5,70,000/-…

Shrimati Sudha Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2, Jalandhar

ITA 525/ASR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, (D.R.)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292CSection 69B

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 525/Asr./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Smt.Sudha Aggarwal Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR Before Shri L. P. Sahu, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No. 525/Asr./2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sudha Aggarwal, ACIT, Central Circle-2, 99, Choti Baradari, Part-I Jalandhar. Vs. Jalandhar. PAN– ADHPA7332D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.K.Gupta (C.A.) Respondent by: Shri Charan Dass, (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 06.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2020 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by th…

Mr. Miten Garg, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3734/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramila M. Biswas
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)

…s judgment of ITAT in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs DCIT in ITA No.1810/Del /2015 and Iftikhar Ahmed vs DCIT in ITA No.7086/Del/2014, Wherein, the Tribunal, following the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain, 339 ITR 351 (Guj.) has allowed the said addition based on CBDT Circular limit. 7 10. Lastly on account of Rs.14 Lakhs, he submitted that firstly it is not based on evidence and already ITAT in the case of Shri Subhash Chandra has allowed on the ground that if surrender is not backed by any incriminating material found or evidence, then mere adhoc surrender…

Sh. Bishan Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 834/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: And Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT-D.R
Section 132

…ted that benefit of 900 grams jewellery may be given to the assessee being explained as per Board Circular (supra). Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs., Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj.) in which it was held as under : “Instruction No.1916, dt.11th May, 1994 which lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery in the course of search takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee and, therefore, unless anything contrary is shown, it can be safely presumed tha…

Suman Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO-26(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4240/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 4240/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Suman Agarwal……...........…...…………..….................................................................................Appellant 103, Agarwal Ashram, M.N. Patankar Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070. [Pan: Akapa 0022 A] Vs. Ito – 26(3)(3), Mumbai……………….......…..…………………....…..........................................Respondent Mumbai. Appearances By: Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2020 Order

Section 2(14)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…in respect of sale of gold. The AR further stated that gold was gifted to the assessee by parents at time of her marriage as per recognised customs prevailing in Hindu Society and he refer the observations of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Jai 2011 (339 ITR 351), it can be safely presumed that the source to the extent of limits laid down in department circular 1916 dated 11th May, 1994 stands explained. He further stated that the question of showing gold which is her Streedhan in the balance sheet does not arise. He further stated that the entire sale proceeds was invested in acquisition of residential…

Sabita Dey, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xviii, Kolkata

In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/KOL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka…………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 2245 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata…………………..…………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 56/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka……………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 1477 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey…………………………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aaipd 9654 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

…e jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests that a family is supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from supposed to hold…

Sharmita Murarka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC - Xviii, K, Kolkata

In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/KOL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka…………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 2245 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata…………………..…………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 56/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka……………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 1477 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey…………………………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aaipd 9654 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

…e jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests that a family is supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from supposed to hold…

Prabhadevi Murarka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC - Xviii, Kolkata

In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka…………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 2245 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata…………………..…………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 56/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka……………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 1477 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey…………………………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aaipd 9654 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

…e jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests that a family is supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from supposed to hold…

Babulal D. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4935/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhbabulal D. Mehta Dcit Central Circle-2(2) 8Th Floor, Room No. 806, 17/19, Kanti Bhuvan, 1St Parsiwada Lane, Vs. Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400004. Pratishtha Bhawan, Pan: Aeepm0912M Mumbai-400020. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…g 270 gram as unexplained. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that as per the Circular of CBDT No. 16/17 and various decisions including Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Komal Wazir vs. DCIT (281 CTR 0506 (Bom), Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Satyanaran Patni [366 ITR 325 Raj.)], Sachin Garg vs. ACIT in ITA No. 3733/Del/2017 dated 20.11.2017, Nawaz Singhania vs. DCIT IA No. 3979/Mum/2017 dated 22.12.2017, Shri Ashok Jain vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6251/Mum/2016 dated 25.05.2018, ITA No. 302/Mum/2015 in Zakaullah Siddqui vs. ACIT dated 26.02.2018 and Vidhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT [93 taxmann.com 275]. The ld. AR also relied u…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3956/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of s…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3955/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of s…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3954/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of s…