CIT v. Varinder Rawlley

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…can be made u/s. 68 of the Act. The A.O. merely stated in the assessment order that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable and went on to make addition of these loans and interest paid to the income of the assessee. In 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 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 the assessee", particularly…

Chandraprakash Paharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…e submitted that the AO is not entitled to make addition u/s 68 of the Act without making further enquiries to disprove the case of the assessee. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the following case laws:-  CIT Vs. Varinder Rawlley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H)  CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj)  CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del)  DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 9. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished the financial statements and proved the source of the cash credits. He submitted that in the following cases, it has been hel…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…s of cash credit, i.e., he had discharged his burden of proof. AO did not make any attempt to discharge his burden of proof to rebut the evidences produced by assessee. No addition u/s.68 can be sustained. 6.3.25 In the case of CIT v, Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H), it was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that 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 th…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilip Chimanlal Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

…(SC); 5) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); 6) Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj); 7) CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevikhadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom); 8) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd. [2012] 51 SOT 234; 9) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H); 10) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Balkiwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj); 11) CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del); 12) CIT vs. Samtelcolor Ltd. 64 DTR 46; and 13) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxmann 213 18. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under: 6.3.24 Hence, it is to be inferred that in a cas…

DCIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Yrv International, Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…iz., (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) the genuineness of the transaction and (iii) genuineness of transactions. (a) CIT Vs. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014)(361 ITR 481)(Gau) (b) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P Ltd (159 ITR 78)(SC) (c) CIT Vs. Varinderrawley (2014)(366 ITR 232)(P & H) (d) Namichand Kothari Vs. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3 M/s. YRV International (e) CIT Vs. Smt. Sushiladevi Khdaria (2009)(319 ITR ….) (f) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd (2012)(51 SOT 234) 5. The Ld CIT(A) also took support of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rushabh Enterprises vs. ACIT (W.P No.167 of 2015), wh…

Jitendra M Kitavat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

…eived from the third party and framed the assessment by making additions by stating in the assessment order that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. The ld. AR further relied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Constructio…

ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jitendra Madanlal Kitawat (HUF), Mumbai

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

…eived from the third party and framed the assessment by making additions by stating in the assessment order that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. The ld. AR further relied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Constructio…

ITO 25(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vikram Muktilal Vora, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito 25(3)(5), Vs. M/S. Vikram Muktilal Vora, Mumbai – 400 051 702/703, Kshem Kalyan Building, Sanyas Ahram, B.S.Road, Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aaapv4747P Appellant) Respondent) ..

…harali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gau) at page 482.(Copy enclosed) The aforesaid points were also affirmed in the past by the Appex Court in the use of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (Se). In tl-e 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…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…eived from the third party and framed the assessment by making additions by stating in the assessment order that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. The ld. AR further relied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Constructio…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…eived from the third party and framed the assessment by making additions by stating in the assessment order that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. The ld. AR further relied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Constructio…

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…eived from the third party and framed the assessment by making additions by stating in the assessment order that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. The ld. AR further relied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Constructio…

ACIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…eived from the third party and framed the assessment by making additions by stating in the assessment order that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. The ld. AR further relied upon the number of decisions like : i) CIT V/s Varinder Rawley (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H); ii) CIT V/s Sachital Communications (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag); iii) CIT V/s Patel Ramniklal Hirji (2004) 222 Taxman 15 (Mag); iv) CIT V/s Jaikumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj); v) Nemi Chand Kothari V/s CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gauhati); vi) CIT V/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt (2014) 220 Taxman 138) (All); vii) CIT V/s Lalpuria Constructio…