What is CIT v. U.K. Shah authority for?

An amount cannot be treated as unexplained income in the hands of an assessee if it is found to belong to another person, even if the department is free to reopen that other person's individual assessments.

How many judgments cite CIT v. U.K. Shah?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. U.K. Shah (90 ITR 396), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. U.K. Shah come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 37(1), Section 69A, Section 132(4), Section 133(6).

CIT v. U.K. Shah (90 ITR 396)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…” as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…oceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…” as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…oceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…” as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…oceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…oceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…oceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee." [Emphasis supplied] BOMBAY HIGH COURT i) 333 ITR 100 (Bom) CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. ii) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) CIT v. U.M. Shah iii) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. GUJARAT HIGH COURT i) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT v. Rohini Builders RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT i) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT MADRAS HIGH COURT i) 294 ITR 663 (Mad) CIT v. Gobi Textiles Ltd. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) ITA No. 110 of 2004…

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 19/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e not found any falsity in the evidences and that the addition has been made and sustained only on the basis suspicion." of surmises, conjectures and suspicion." 44. Besides, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of CIT VS U. M. Shah [40CCH 184] [90 ITR 396] that when all the payments have been made by cheques and the interest was also paid by cheques and all the lenders Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.19/Nag./2016 and the broker were all Income-tax assessees and the lenders had confirmed having lent the amounts in question, we are unable to agree with the Department that there was any pri…

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

ITA 81/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 269TSection 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 81/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, ……………. Appellant Ward -1, Amravati v/s Shri Sanjay Nanasaheb Bharsakale 1, Shivaji Nagar, Banosa, ……………. Respondent Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. PAN – AHRPB8625J Assessee by : Shri Manoj Moriyani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr. Date of Hearing – 09/07/2024 Date of Order – 16/07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the department challenging the impugned…

RAVINDRA GAUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…t, and the addition so upheld by rejecting the bonafide explanation offered with documentary evidences, deserve to be deleted and the assessee prays accordingly. Reliance is placed on the following:- 1. CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) 2. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3. Divine Leasing ete Vs. CIT 299 ITR 268 (DEL) 4. 34 ITR 328 (MAD) & Ker HC in 117 ITR 371 5. Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs DCIT (ITAT JPR) in ITA 1503/JP/2018 dated 15.02.2021 We also find it relevant to quote from letter dated 16.10.2023 (copy enclosed with this submission) issued to the ass…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…tweigh the material and evidence supplied by the appellant is brought on record. It is further submitted that if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the appellant could not be blamed – CIT v U M Shah, proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) / ITO vs. Mayur Agarwal (2010) 133 TTJ 1 (Agra) TM. The AO has further failed to prove that the loans are nothing but income in the hands of appellant. The appellant further submits that loans are receipts not chargeable to tax and hence cannot be taxed. It is respectfully submitted that the Assessing Officer had not even expressed that he i…

KHERESH ABHAY CHHEDA,THANE vs. ACIT, CIR-1, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1095/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Smt. Padmavathi S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 68

…hedule to the Balance Sheet of the said vendor and that the vendor has not responded to the notice under section 133(6). In this regard the ld AR relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs UM Shah Proprietor Shrenik Trading Company (90 ITR 396) to submit that non-response to notice under section 133(6) cannot be the sole reason for making the addition. 10. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the transaction and the evidences in this regard were not produced. The Ld.DR, therefore, submitted that the assessee has not discharged the…

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GRACE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES , MUMBAI

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

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…High Court also held that merely M/s Grace Development Associates. Mumbai. because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. > U.M. Shah, Propreitor, Shrenik Trading Co. 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) It was held that it was not for the assessee to produce the witness without summons. The assessee having discharged the initial onus of giving complete name and address of bankers and confirmation letters it was for the Income-Tax Officer to show that the explanation rendered by the assessee was untrue. Brij Pal Sharma, 333 ITR 229 (P & H)…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HI-TECH ENGINEERS , MUMBAI

In the result, both revenue’s appeal and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2712/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 09/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 08/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafh0253L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) C.O. 8 & 9 /Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav (DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)

…d be considered as genuine. For this proposition, the appellant has relied upon the decisions in the case of (i) Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) (ii) Nikunk Eximp Enterprises, ITXAL No.5604 of 2010 (iii) U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading co. 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) (iii) Brij Pal Sharma, 333 ITR 229 (P&H) (iv) Hi Lux Automotive (P) Ltd., 183, Taxman 260 (Del) (v) Rajesh P. Soni 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.) (vi) Babulal C. Borana vs. ITO ) 282 ITR 251 (Bom.) and ITO vs. Kanchwala Gems 122 TTJ 854. 7.3.4 In the case of Rushabh Trading Co., Rushabh Corporation, Hitesh Kantilal Shah HUF and Vimainath Traders, durin…

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1 , BHOPAL vs. SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, GWALIOR

ITA 795/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Central-1 Shri Narendra Gupta, Bhopal Gwalior बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Afqpg 8055 A Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)

…those persons must have chosen the easy way to altogether deny they transaction. For their denial or default, the appellant cannot be made to suffer the tax liability. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M Shah, Prop. Shreni & Trading co. (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Born) has held that if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the assessee could not be blamed. Another aspect highlighted by the appellant that the above amount of Rs. 8,25,03,772/- does not represent the income of the appellant. Ld. AO has made the huge addition Simply on the basis of certain entries found in WhatsApp message…

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 593/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…because summons issued to some of creditors could not be served or they failed to appear before A.O could not be ground to treat those credits as non-genuine. The similar views were held in the case of CIT v. U.M. shah, proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396,397(Bom) and in the case of Rohini Builders v. Dy. CIT [2002] 76 TTJ (Ahd.) 521/[2011] 117 Taxman 26(Mag). The ratio of Rohini Builders case (supra) was also relied upon the following cases: 1. Mohar Singh v. Dy. CIT[2002]77 TTJ(Agra)218 2. Dy. CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. [2003] 81 TTJ(Lucknow) 389. 3. ITO v. Matadin Snehlata (HUF) […

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 592/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…because summons issued to some of creditors could not be served or they failed to appear before A.O could not be ground to treat those credits as non-genuine. The similar views were held in the case of CIT v. U.M. shah, proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396,397(Bom) and in the case of Rohini Builders v. Dy. CIT [2002] 76 TTJ (Ahd.) 521/[2011] 117 Taxman 26(Mag). The ratio of Rohini Builders case (supra) was also relied upon the following cases: 1. Mohar Singh v. Dy. CIT[2002]77 TTJ(Agra)218 2. Dy. CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. [2003] 81 TTJ(Lucknow) 389. 3. ITO v. Matadin Snehlata (HUF) […

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 591/KOL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…because summons issued to some of creditors could not be served or they failed to appear before A.O could not be ground to treat those credits as non-genuine. The similar views were held in the case of CIT v. U.M. shah, proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396,397(Bom) and in the case of Rohini Builders v. Dy. CIT [2002] 76 TTJ (Ahd.) 521/[2011] 117 Taxman 26(Mag). The ratio of Rohini Builders case (supra) was also relied upon the following cases: 1. Mohar Singh v. Dy. CIT[2002]77 TTJ(Agra)218 2. Dy. CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. [2003] 81 TTJ(Lucknow) 389. 3. ITO v. Matadin Snehlata (HUF) […

ITO 24(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S OPAL DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5345/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

…before the completion of assessment proceedings before the AO. As to findings of the AO that the loan creditors did not appear in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the Ac, it was held in the case of CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Born.) that “if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the assessee could not be blamed. Hence, in my opinion merely based on the statement of a third person without any corroborative evidence, transactions in question could not be held as non-genuine or bogus. As such, in the absence of any contrary evidence placed on record th…

CIT v. U.K. Shah

What is CIT v. U.K. Shah authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. U.K. Shah

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

RAVINDRA GAUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

KHERESH ABHAY CHHEDA,THANE vs. ACIT, CIR-1, THANE

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GRACE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES , MUMBAI

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HI-TECH ENGINEERS , MUMBAI

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1 , BHOPAL vs. SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, GWALIOR

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITO 24(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S OPAL DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI