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

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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 3952/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

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 3951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2894/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…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2892/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

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…

Shri Vimal Chand Surana, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

…d that the benefit of the Circular/Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 shall be given in respect of all the family members. The ld. A/R of the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni, 366 ITR 325 (Raj.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held in para 12 & 13 as under :- “12. It is true that the circular of the CBDT, referred to supra dt. 11/05/1994 only refers to the jewellery 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 and it does not speak about the…

Vivek Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 2931/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinarinder Mohan Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aeipj2908Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Meetu Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shakuntala Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vivek Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GS Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…mitted a chart of her family members and stated that according to the instruction number 1916 the assessee must get the benefit of 2550 g of jewellery. The claim of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of 339 ITR 351 in CIT vs Ratanlal Veparilal Jain. Therefore we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to follow the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court and grant assessee the benefit of instruction number 1916. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction…

Shakuntala Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 2930/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinarinder Mohan Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aeipj2908Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Meetu Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shakuntala Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vivek Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GS Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…mitted a chart of her family members and stated that according to the instruction number 1916 the assessee must get the benefit of 2550 g of jewellery. The claim of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of 339 ITR 351 in CIT vs Ratanlal Veparilal Jain. Therefore we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to follow the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court and grant assessee the benefit of instruction number 1916. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction…

Meetu Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 2929/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinarinder Mohan Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aeipj2908Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Meetu Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shakuntala Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vivek Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GS Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…mitted a chart of her family members and stated that according to the instruction number 1916 the assessee must get the benefit of 2550 g of jewellery. The claim of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of 339 ITR 351 in CIT vs Ratanlal Veparilal Jain. Therefore we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to follow the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court and grant assessee the benefit of instruction number 1916. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction…

Narinder Mohan Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 2928/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinarinder Mohan Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aeipj2908Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Meetu Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shakuntala Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vivek Jain, Vs. Dcit, Ki-165, Daya Sadan, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle-5, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Aaep7872Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GS Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 132Section 69A

…mitted a chart of her family members and stated that according to the instruction number 1916 the assessee must get the benefit of 2550 g of jewellery. The claim of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of 339 ITR 351 in CIT vs Ratanlal Veparilal Jain. Therefore we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to follow the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court and grant assessee the benefit of instruction number 1916. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction…

Late Smt. Kailash Agrawal Through Lh Mr. Sushil Agrawal, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Late Smt. Kailash Agrawal Dcit-1 Through Lh Mr. Sudhir बनाम/ Kumar Agrawal, Bhopal Vs. E-2/4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aarpa4436B Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3 Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 28.02.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 31.01.2014 By Dcit(Central) Bhopal. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)

…आयकर 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 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Smt. Kailash Agrawal DCIT-1 Through LH Mr. Sudhir बनाम/ Kumar Agrawal, Bhopal Vs. E-2/4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: AARPA4436B Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT- DR Date of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 06.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal by Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4883/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…of the family according to the status, then no addition should be made. He therefore submitted that the assessee deserves the grant of benefit of that circular at least. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 339 ITR 351. 6. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the orders of the lower authorities may be affirmed for the simple reason that assessee is found in possession of certain invoices of purchase of jewelry as well as the jewelry. She submitted that benefit of circular cannot be given where the invoices of purchase of jewelry were f…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4882/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…of the family according to the status, then no addition should be made. He therefore submitted that the assessee deserves the grant of benefit of that circular at least. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 339 ITR 351. 6. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the orders of the lower authorities may be affirmed for the simple reason that assessee is found in possession of certain invoices of purchase of jewelry as well as the jewelry. She submitted that benefit of circular cannot be given where the invoices of purchase of jewelry were f…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4881/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…of the family according to the status, then no addition should be made. He therefore submitted that the assessee deserves the grant of benefit of that circular at least. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 339 ITR 351. 6. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the orders of the lower authorities may be affirmed for the simple reason that assessee is found in possession of certain invoices of purchase of jewelry as well as the jewelry. She submitted that benefit of circular cannot be given where the invoices of purchase of jewelry were f…

ACIT, Circle-33(1) vs. Alps International

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4709/DEL/2003[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Vs. M/S. Alps International, Circle-33(1), New Delhi 16/11, Iind Floor, R.D. Chamber, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aaafa5155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca; & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, Ca

Section 40A(3)Section 69BSection 80H

…e CIT(A). - Further, disallowance made by the AO under section 40A(3) of the Act on account of alleged cash purchases, without any supporting document, is illegal and bad in law, as has been held in the following decisions: - CIT. v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - Free India Assurance Services Ltd. v. DCIT: 132 ITD 60 (Mum - ITO v. Nardev Kumar Gupta: ITA No. 829/Jp/2012 (Jaip) " Similarly, addition made by the AO on account of profit from alleged cash sales outside the books of accounts, without any supporting document, is illegal and bad in law, as has been held in the following decisions: " - CI…

Ashok Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

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

ITA 6251/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodshri Ashok Jain Acit, Central Circle-38 1303, Vastu Shilp (Presently Dcit, Cc-6(3) Gamadia Colony Vs. Air India Building Tardeo, Mumbai 400007 Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaopj2690M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 132Section 153A

…lar dated 11.05.1994 (supra). As per the learned A.R. though the said circular was issued laying down the limits of jewellery found during the course of search but according to him the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 339 ITR 351 has held that to the extent stated in the circular, jewellery can be treated as explained and no addition can be sustained on that basis. To the same effect, the judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni 366 ITR 325 was also referred to. Explaining the error on the part of the CIT(A) in relying upon t…

Smt. Dalvinder Kaur Ryait, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1515/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Dalvinder Kaur Ryait, Vs. The Dcit, 208-H, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Central Circle-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. : Aegpr1651E

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2008-09 Smt. Dalvinder Kaur Ryait, Vs. The DCIT, 208-H, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Central Circle-II, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN No. : AEGPR1651E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA & Ms. Kanita Gupta, CA Respondent by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 02.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the o…

Smt. Manju Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 Manju Gupta, Acit, Central Circle- 1, House No.705/706, Sector- 16A, Faridabad. Vs. Faridabad.

For Appellant: Shri Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 251(2)

…200 gms of gold as explained in the hands of different family members and Rs. 40,000/- on account of unexplained investment in silver utensils. 4 Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ratan Lal Vyaparilal Jain (2011), 339 ITR 351, the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri Pradeep Goyal in ITA No. 589/Chd/2015 has held that the AO should to give benefit of jewellery found during search proceedings as per CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 10.05.1994 in each member from the total jewellery found during the course of search as follows: 500 gms to married ladies, 250…

Zakaulla Siddqui, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui Asst. Commissioner Of A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Income-Tax, Central Vs. House, Napean Sea Road, Circle-47, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 A.C.I.T.-Cc-8(4) Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. House, Napean Sea Road, Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…1916 dated 11.05.1994 which was discussed (AO order pg 5, Q2) by the search team in the statement recorded. However, the AO failed to give benefit of the said instruction at the time of making assessment. In the case of CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Raj), it was held that the said circular takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee and it can be safely presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular Zakaulla Siddiqui stands explained. Thus, the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition was…