CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aimpb4673N (Assessee) (Respondent)

…e and the explanation was not satisfactory. Further in Section 69A of the Act, the word used is ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. In support of the above submission, assessee relies on the following decisions of the courts and tribunal: (i) CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) (ii) Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay)(HC) (iii) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) (HC) ITA.246/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya (iv) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC) (v) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (ALL.) (HC) It is submitted that the assessee re…

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Income Tax Officer Vs Rama Allure LLP Ward, Phalodi, 98, Krishna Nagar, Jodhpur Pal Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAZFR 4837 P Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari, C.A. & Sh. Ajay Moondra Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT Date of hearing 14/07/2023 Date of 09/10/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by revenue and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 28.02.2023 [here in a…

Manohar Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

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

…o prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of account but not the source of the source  CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) In the corresponding clause of the Bill which was introduced in Parliament, while inserting s. 69 in the IT Act, 1961, the word “shall” had been used but during the course of consideration of the Bill and on the recommendation of the Select Committee, the said word was substituted by the word “may”. This clearly indicates that the intention…

Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.335/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward- C-104, Radha Raman Textile 1(1)(3), Surat, Room No.113, Market, Saroli,Surat-395010 Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck 0726 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

…d not ‘shall’. Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 13. From the details as aforesaid which emerges from the paper book filed before us as well as before the lower authorities, it is vivid that all the share applicants are (i) income tax assessee’s, (ii) they are filing their return of income, (iii) the share application form and allotment letter is available on record, (iv) the share application…

Shri Bunty Kumar, Rajouri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 215/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Bunty Kumar, Vs. ACIT/DCIT Near Petrol Pump, Central Circle Rajouri-185 131, Jammu Jammu & Kashmir (Respondent) [PAN: BIXPK3113L] (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA & Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, ITP Respondent by : Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld…

M/S. Worldwide Fourtune Homes, Kathua vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

…nt are true. Subsequent denial of a transaction which is clearly made out from the impounded document cannot be taken as ground for providing any relief to the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan reported at [1999] 237 ITR 570 has held that if, the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment is not found to be satisfactory, the AO has the discretion to treat such investment as assessee's income. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru S. Shyam Kumar vs. ACIT reported at [2018] 99 taxmann.com 39 has held as under: “Unexplained inve…