CIT v. Varinder Rawlley

366 ITR 232High Court2014#1440 most cited

What is CIT v. Varinder Rawlley authority for?

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by proving the identity and genuineness of the transaction, typically through account payee cheques, bank entries, and the creditor's PAN. The amount cannot be added as the assessee's income unless the department produces material linking the funds to the assessee or demonstrating the creditor's source flowed from the assessee, especially if the creditor is not under the assessee's control.

79

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Varinder Rawlley · Section 68 · cash credit · onus of proof · identity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · account payee cheque · shell company · Section 131 · reassessment

Also reported as

221 Taxmann 18051 Taxmann.com 524

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 131Section 148Section 151Section 133(6)Section 153A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)summons under section 131source of sourcepaper companyonus of proofpermanent account numbersurrender of incomecreditworthiness of the creditoraddition under section 68shell companyprincipal officersection 260

Judgments citing CIT v. Varinder Rawlley

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

…of Page No. 63 Udayan Grover information received without making any further enquiries. Even the A.O. himself does not appear to have been satisfied with the issue of addition to be made to the income disclosed. In the case of C.I.T.v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H), the Court held that “where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party’s account were in fact received from third and are genuine, In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee’s income in the absence of any material to indicate that it belongs to the assessee”, particularly in a case where no summons u/…

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Aakruti Ketan Mehta Vs. ITO, Ward-35(1)(1) 2501/2502, Ashok Tower Kautilya Bhavan Dr. S.S. Rao Road Bandra Kurla Complex Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.BAVPM3711N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pradip Kapasi Revenue by Shri A.S. Sant Date of Hearing 28/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 02/12/2022 passed by ld. CIT(A)-57, Mu…

Savita Mercantiles Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.168/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Savita Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-3(3)(2) 83, A Wing, Mittal Tower, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Karve Road, New Marine 400021. Lines, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs9614G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Viraj Mehta Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 03.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.45,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Receipt Of Share Application Money Only On The Basis Of Statement Given By Shri Pravin Kumar Jain.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 183(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.168/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Savita Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ ITO-3(3)(2) 83, A Wing, Mittal Tower, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Karve Road, New Marine 400021. Lines, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHCS9614G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Viraj Mehta Revenue by: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की…

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rom the undisclosed sources of the assessee himself, when there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence on record that the said loan amounts actually belonged to, or were owned by, the assessee.” Ix 2014 - CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley - High Court of P&H [366 ITR 232] - (Annexure XI) “10. It has come on record that the assessee-respondent received the amount by way of an account payee cheque. The amount was returned by way of an account payee cheque. The transactions were reflected in the bank accounts of the assessee as well as the creditor. The firm, M/s. Vishnu Jewellers, was an income-tax assessee. Its PA…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…of CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau). The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). In the case of CIT v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P & H) the court held that “where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party’s account were in fact received from the third party and are genuine, he discharges the onus. In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee’s income in the absence of any material to indicate that it belongs to assessee. 7.11 It is…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4038/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…of CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau). The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). In the case of CIT v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P & H) the court held that “where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party’s account were in fact received from the third party and are genuine, he discharges the onus. In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee’s income in the absence of any material to indicate that it belongs to assessee. 7.11 It is…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3117/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…of CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau). The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). In the case of CIT v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P & H) the court held that “where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party’s account were in fact received from the third party and are genuine, he discharges the onus. In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee’s income in the absence of any material to indicate that it belongs to assessee. 7.11 It is…

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6806/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)) - 37, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 U/Sec Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, BKC Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAIPS0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DR Respondent by : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR Date of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR…

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…of CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau). The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 IT 78 (SC). In the case of CIT v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P & H) the court held that "where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party's account were in fact received from the third party and are genuine, he discharges the onus. In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee's income in the absence of any material sate that it belongs to assessee. ITA No. 6128/Mum/2…

Sandeep Garg, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

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

ITA 4491/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sandeep Garg, Vs. DCIT, C/o Sanjay Kumar & Co.,CA, Circle-2, 318, Sadar Bundela, Meerut. Dlamandi, Meerut Cantt., Meerut. PAN: AFMPG5548Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.05.2017 of the CIT(A), Meerut, relating to…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 68

…Jain. Thus, we notice that the AO, through the process of examining the lenders, did not disprove the evidences furnished by the assessee. 16. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered an identical issue in the case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley (2014)(366 ITR 232). The head notes of the above said case is extracted below: "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for charging of income of the assessee to tax, if, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to render any explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of any sum found credited in…

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 56/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

…Jain. Thus, we notice that the AO, through the process of examining the lenders, did not disprove the evidences furnished by the assessee. 16. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered an identical issue in the case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley (2014)(366 ITR 232). The head notes of the above said case is extracted below: 5 Appeals DCIT, CC-8(1) Vs. Shri Surinder Anantram Sabhlok 22 "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for charging of income of the assessee to tax, if, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to render any explanation or the explanation offered by the as…

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6490/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ever, would have been different if those creditors were not income tax assessee or if they had not disclosed those transactions in their income tax returns or if such returns were not accepted by their AOs.” In the case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley reported in 366 ITR 232, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana decided that: It has come on record that the Assessee-respondent received the amount by way of an account payee cheque. The amount was returned by way of an account payee cheque. The transactions were reflected in the bank accounts of the Assessee as well as the creditor. It appears that no enquiry was made…

ITO 22 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 6489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ever, would have been different if those creditors were not income tax assessee or if they had not disclosed those transactions in their income tax returns or if such returns were not accepted by their AOs.” In the case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley reported in 366 ITR 232, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana decided that: It has come on record that the Assessee-respondent received the amount by way of an account payee cheque. The amount was returned by way of an account payee cheque. The transactions were reflected in the bank accounts of the Assessee as well as the creditor. It appears that no enquiry was made…

ACIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders $ Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4105/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ever, would have been different if those creditors were not income tax assessee or if they had not disclosed those transactions in their income tax returns or if such returns were not accepted by their AOs.” In the case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley reported in 366 ITR 232, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana decided that: It has come on record that the Assessee-respondent received the amount by way of an account payee cheque. The amount was returned by way of an account payee cheque. The transactions were reflected in the bank accounts of the Assessee as well as the creditor. It appears that no enquiry was made…

ITO-22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sai Everest Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 4096/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ever, would have been different if those creditors were not income tax assessee or if they had not disclosed those transactions in their income tax returns or if such returns were not accepted by their AOs.” In the case of CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley reported in 366 ITR 232, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana decided that: It has come on record that the Assessee-respondent received the amount by way of an account payee cheque. The amount was returned by way of an account payee cheque. The transactions were reflected in the bank accounts of the Assessee as well as the creditor. It appears that no enquiry was made…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

For Appellant: Shri Karan shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER With Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 ITO, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. PAN : ABJPS 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ…

ACIT, Allahabad vs. M/S Sunsine Infrastate Pvt Ttd, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

ITA 103/ALLD/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 May 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Parveen Godbole,CA
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

…32(Alld. HC) 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. , reported in (2015) 229 taxman 258(Delhi HC) 3. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Virendra Rawlley , reported in (2014)366 ITR 232(P&H HC) 4. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Shailesh Kumar Rasiklal Mehta , reported in (2014) 224 Taxman 212(Guj. HC) 5. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal , reported in (2014) 366 ITR 217(Raj.. HC) 6. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Jagdish Prasad T…

Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 299/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…of CIT v. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau). The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). In the case of CIT v. Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P & H) the court held that "where the assessee shows that the entries regarding credit in a third party's account were in fact received from the third party and are genuine, he discharges the onus. In that case, the sum cannot be charged as the assessee's income in the absence of any material to indicate that it belongs to assessee", particularl…

A.C.I.T., Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Viswakarma Residency, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. M.L.Meena, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / ACIT, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/s. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, DS-IV, V/s. 2nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. PAN: AAIFV3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing through video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, CIT, DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronounc…