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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain?

113 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (339 ITR 351), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153C, Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 115BBE, Section 153A, Section 292C.

CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (339 ITR 351)

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

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

ITA 3733/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2014-15 Sachin Garg, Acit, Central Circle- 1, A-2/105, Milan Vihar Apartments, New Delhi. Plot No.72, I.P. Extn., Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 69

…for evidence of bills/invoices to support the purchase of the jewellery. It was accordingly held that invocation of section 69 in these facts is completely unwarranted. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni reported in 366 ITR 325 has held that where jewellery found in possession of assessee’s family was personal wearing of ladies and same was within permissible limit stipulated by CBDT Circular, no addition was to be made. Since in the instant case, admittedly the jewellery found in the Locker was only 313.600 grams which is much less than 500 grams as per CBDT Circula…

Rakesh Mahajan, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1810/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

…sition but it is merely lays down guidelines for seizure of the jewellery and in support he has also refereed to judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court. On the contrary, we find that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain, 339 ITR 351 (Guj.), while interpreting the same CBDT No.1916 (supra) the Hon’ble High Court observed and held as under :- “10. Though it is true that the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dated 11th May, 1994 lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and 12 Rakesh Mahajan vs. DCIT Iftikhar Ahmed vs. DCIT ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into a…

Iftikhar Ahmed, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7086/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

…sition but it is merely lays down guidelines for seizure of the jewellery and in support he has also refereed to judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court. On the contrary, we find that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain, 339 ITR 351 (Guj.), while interpreting the same CBDT No.1916 (supra) the Hon’ble High Court observed and held as under :- “10. Though it is true that the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dated 11th May, 1994 lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and 12 Rakesh Mahajan vs. DCIT Iftikhar Ahmed vs. DCIT ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into a…

M. Dinesh Kumar, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 645/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parhat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 132Section 132(4)

…ained investment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Pati Devi 240 ITR 72 as well as the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 339 ITR 351. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dt.6.12.2016 in the case of P. Goutam Chand Vs. DCIT in ITA No.737/Bang/2016 as well as decision dt.14.8.2015 in the case of M. Vimal Kumar & Another Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.642 & 643/Bang/2015. 10. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submit…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Ashok Kumar Sankhla, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 608/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR

…ses:- (i)Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO [2012] 69 DTR 82 (Del.) (ii)CIT Vs. Satya Narain Patni 366 ITR 325 (Raj.) (HC) (iii)Smt. Pati Devi vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kar) (iv)Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Ratan lal Vyaparilal Jain (Guj.) (HC) 339 ITR 351 In view of the above, the order of CIT(A) be upheld by dismissing the ground of the department.’’ 20 The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs Shri Ashok Kumar Sankhla 6.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that the AO made the addition of Rs. 12,49,729/- on the unexplained jewellery we…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Renu Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5415/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 5415/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Renu Bansal, Central Circle-4, A-8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aezpb5789G Assessee By : Sh. Krishan Kant, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 15.05.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Krishan Kant, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 132

…n held as explained jewellery by various judicial forum.” 6. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Harakchand N. Jain Vs ACIT (1998) 61 TTJ 223 (Mum.) " Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO (2011) 202 Taxman 395 (Del.) " VIT Vs Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj.) " S. K. Patel Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5796/Mum/2009 " ACIT Vs Sh. Narendra D Patel in ITA No. 5294/Mum/2010 " ACIT Vs Raj Kumari Aggarwal in ITA No. 530/Del/2010 7. It was further submitted that the assessee on the basis of VDIS claim and instruction number 1916 issued by the CBDT claimed the following jewellery as explained: S. NO. Name Relati…

M. Sunil Kumar, Kgf vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1144/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M.K. Biju, JCIT

…ch would generally be held by the family members as upheld by the Karnataka High court in the case of Pati Devi (240 ITR 727). Similar view has also been held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratanlal Vyparilal Jain in 339 ITR 351, Para 10 is relevant to this issue. The Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Harish S. Patel Vs. DCIT (2012) 6 Taxcorp (A. T) 28617 has endorsed the same view. Finally, the AR relied on this Tribunal decision in ITA Nos 642 & 643/Bang/2015 for ay 2012-13 dt 14.8.2015 in the cases of S/Shri M Vimal kumar & M Sanjay Kumar & ITA No 737/Bang/2016 for…

Asst CIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vinod Ramniwas Garg, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2899/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2249/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Vinod Garg, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O M/S Loya Bagri & Co., Income Tax – Central Cir V. Chartered Accountants, 18 & 19, Gandhibag, Mumbai. Nagpur – 440 002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abopg 6195 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69B

…/page 1. The ld. Counsel also relied upon following judicial decisions in support of his claim:- ITA No. 2249/Mum/2015 & 16 1. CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 2. Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (2012) 69 DTR 82 (Del) 3. CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351(Guj.) 4. CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) It was also submitted that no documents were seized during the search operations by Revenue which incriminates assessee. It was submitted that the AO erred in invoking Section 69B of 1961 Act while making additions, while the applicable section is 69A of 1961 Act , if at all additions were t…

Vinod Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2249/MUM/2015[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2249/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Vinod Garg, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O M/S Loya Bagri & Co., Income Tax – Central Cir V. Chartered Accountants, 18 & 19, Gandhibag, Mumbai. Nagpur – 440 002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abopg 6195 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69B

…/page 1. The ld. Counsel also relied upon following judicial decisions in support of his claim:- ITA No. 2249/Mum/2015 & 16 1. CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 2. Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (2012) 69 DTR 82 (Del) 3. CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351(Guj.) 4. CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) It was also submitted that no documents were seized during the search operations by Revenue which incriminates assessee. It was submitted that the AO erred in invoking Section 69B of 1961 Act while making additions, while the applicable section is 69A of 1961 Act , if at all additions were t…

P. Goutham Chand, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri George George Kmr. P. Goutham Chand, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of “Sai Apartments” Income Tax, No. 201, 2Nd Floor, No. 2, Central Circle-2(1), K. R. Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560004. Pan : Abzpg3883D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Khincha, CA

Section 132

…M Sanjay Kumar v. DCIT, CC 2(1), Bangalore in ITA Nos.642 & 643/Bang/2015 dated 14.8.2015. After due consideration of the rival submissions and also extensively quoting the ruling of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [339 ITR 351 (Guj)] on a Page 10 of 13 similar issue, the earlier Bench had recorded its findings as under: “08. We are therefore of the opinion that assessee can always claim exclusion from undisclosed jewellery the quantum of jewellery mentioned in the said circular. However, the circular allows only 100 gms per male member, 250 gms for unmarried lady and…

S.C. Verma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3763/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 S.C. Verma, Vs. Acit, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Greater Kailash-I, Faridabad. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs. S.C. Verma, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Faridabad Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Kapoor, Advocate Department By : Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue – Arise Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 25.5.2012 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita Nos.3757 & 3763/Del/2012

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, CIT, DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…9) 240 ITR 727 (Kar.) has held that CBDT Instruction dated 11 May, 1994 directing the authorities not to seize specified quantities of gold jewellery applies qua the addition as well. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj) has also has held that Instruction No.1916 can be safely applied in presuming that the source to the extent of jewellery stated in the Circular stands explained. We do not directly fall under jurisdiction of any of the above the context of making addition as well. Thus, it is apparent that the predominant view of the Hon’ble High Courts i…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. S.C. Verma, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3757/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 S.C. Verma, Vs. Acit, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Greater Kailash-I, Faridabad. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs. S.C. Verma, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Faridabad Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Kapoor, Advocate Department By : Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue – Arise Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 25.5.2012 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita Nos.3757 & 3763/Del/2012

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, CIT, DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…9) 240 ITR 727 (Kar.) has held that CBDT Instruction dated 11 May, 1994 directing the authorities not to seize specified quantities of gold jewellery applies qua the addition as well. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj) has also has held that Instruction No.1916 can be safely applied in presuming that the source to the extent of jewellery stated in the Circular stands explained. We do not directly fall under jurisdiction of any of the above the context of making addition as well. Thus, it is apparent that the predominant view of the Hon’ble High Courts i…

M. Sushil Kumar, Kgf vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 644/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Rebella, Asst.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…d, then the entire gold and jewellery stands explained and therefore, no addition is called for. In support of his proposition, he relied on the following judgments; a. CIT Vs Ghanshyam das Johri 41 Taxmann.com 295 (All.) b. CIT Vs Ratanlal Vyparilal Jain 339 ITR 351 ITA No.644 & SP No.87(B)/2014 c. Harish S Patel Vs DCIT (2012) 6 Tax Corp (AT) 28617 d. CIT Vs Sayta Narain Patni 46 Taxmann.com 440 (Raj.) e. Pati Devi 240 ITR 727 8.1 On the other hand, learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities. 8.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8.3. It is undisputed fac…

CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain