CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta v. Office of the CIT (107 TTJ 200)

Q: What is CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta v. Office of the CIT authority for?

A charitable trust cannot claim exemption under Section 11 if its trustees misappropriate trust funds or manage its affairs as a personal business, thus violating the conditions for exemption.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta v. Office of the CIT?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta v. Office of the CIT (107 TTJ 200), spanning 2019 to 2024.

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Vibgyor Net Connections, Karnataka

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.631/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Cross-Objection No.29/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132Section 69A

…ion of ITAT Chennai in the case of M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2007] 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai). The co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Chennai under identical set of facts, has held as under: 28. In the case of MM Financiers (P) Limited Vs DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal held that dumb documents or documents with no certainty have no evidentiary value for the purpose of resorting to deeming provisions. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal is extracted as under: 24. In the case ofBansal Strips (P.) Ltd. (supra), while considering the issue of…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Surat

In the result, summarized and concise ground No

ITA 45/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.25 &31/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate, A./K. Road, Surat-395008 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.45/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Income-Tax, Circle-3, Room No. Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Vs. 505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Fashion, 14, Nirman Industrial Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…ourt of Gujarat and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have been relied upon by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in several cases. The assessee’s case also stand covered by the case laws of CIT vs. Gian Gupa (2014) 369 ITR 248 (Del); M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai ITAT) and; ACIT vs. Shri Radheshyam Poddar (1992) 41 ITD 449 (Kolkata ITAT) wherein it has been held that no course of action could arise in any court of law on the basis of an unsigned document and the addition made on the basis of such unsigned documents were not sustainable. The assessee’s case is even supported by the case laws of Ni…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal vs. Shri Neeraj Mandloi, New Delhi

ITA 680/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

…to indicate transactions related to somebody else. It has been further held that document must be speaking document and no addition is permissible on basis of dumb document. 24. The ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of M.M. Financiers Pvt Ltd Vs. DCfTreported in 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) held that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the dumb loose slip seized from his residence, in the absence of any corroborative material. 25. The ITAT, Delhi in the case of S.K. Gupta v DCIT reported in 63 TTJ 532 (Del) has held as under :- « The basis of addition in this case IS a seized paper 17 Sh…