What is ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz authority for?

Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and an assessee is not barred from challenging the assessment order's findings used to levy penalty.

How many judgments cite ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz (96 ITR 646), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 270A, Section 132, Section 250, Section 271(1)(c), Section 270A(9)(e).

ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz (96 ITR 646)

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted t…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted t…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted t…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…views have been taken in the following catena of cases: I. B.MuniappaGounder v CIT [1976] 102 ITR 7987 (Mad) II. Krishnan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU vs. KUDLUR RAMASWAMY SATHYANARAYANA, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1130/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…e statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, *P.K. Palwankar* v. *CGT*, [1979] 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz, [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) on which also learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal's order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected." **18.** All the aforementioned judgments were considered by this Court in *M/s. Bannalal Jat Construction…

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the statement at the time of survey was wrong and, in fact, there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, case P.K Palwankar v. CGT(1979) 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CITY. Mrs. Doris S. Late (1974) 96 ITR 646(Ker.) on which also the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance, are of ne help to the assessee. The Tribunal's order is concluded by findings of fact and moor view, no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected." (in the above case the statement was recorded during survey. The above judgment is thus in the contex…

J C HOME TEX,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 7, JAIPUR

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…e statement at the time of survey was wrong and, in fact, there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, cay P.K. Palwankar v. CGT [1979] 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker.) on which also the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance, are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal's order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view, no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected." (Emphasis supplied) (In the above case the statement was recorded during survey. The above judgeme…

DCIT, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 216/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…tatement at the time of survey was wrong and, in fact, there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, case - P.K. Palwankar v. CGT [1979] 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker.) on which also the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance, are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal’s order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view, no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.” (Emphasis supplied) 7.6.2. Sanjeev Agrawal v. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner, [2015] 56 taxma…

M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF,ALLAHABAD vs. ACCT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 199/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…tatement at the time of survey was wrong and, in fact, there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, case - P.K. Palwankar v. CGT [1979] 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker.) on which also the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance, are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal’s order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view, no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.” (Emphasis supplied) 7.6.2. Sanjeev Agrawal v. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner, [2015] 56 taxma…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1654/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153A

…n the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, P.K. Palwankar v. CGT, [1979] 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz, [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) on which also learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal’s order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.” All the aforementioned judgments were considered by this Court in M/s. Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt. Lt…

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 287/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhari (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H); 2) CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del.); 3)Muniappa Gounder (B) v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 787 (Mad. 4) CIT v. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. (H) [1986] 160 ITR 94 (AP) (FB); 5) CIT v. Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker.). 8 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO It has also been held that an assessee is entitled to submit fresh evidence in the course of penalty proceedings. It is because penalty proceedings are independent proceedings. The Tribunal ,in the case of Prasanna Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 244 ITR 188(Ker.) held that since the Tribunal…

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…roboration through an independent source is a must which has not been done by Assessing Authority as has been held in the following cases: 1956 (SC) 9 Pangamban Kalanjoy Singh vs. State of Manipur i) 109 ITR 324 (Cal) CIT vs. Chrestin Vies Industries Ltd. ii) 96 ITR 646 (ker) CIT vs. Ms. Dris S. Luiz iii) iv) 108 TTJ 575 (Nag) S. K. Jain vs. JCIT 1.12 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Anupam Kapuur (pages 294-296 of JPB) 43 DTR 149 (Agr) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT (pages309-326 of JPB) ii) 1.13 Further, it is submitted that, in the instant case, transacti…

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…roboration through an independent source is a must which has not been done by Assessing Authority as has been held in the following cases: 1956 (SC) 9 Pangamban Kalanjoy Singh vs. State of Manipur i) 109 ITR 324 (Cal) CIT vs. Chrestin Vies Industries Ltd. ii) 96 ITR 646 (ker) CIT vs. Ms. Dris S. Luiz iii) iv) 108 TTJ 575 (Nag) S. K. Jain vs. JCIT 1.12 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Anupam Kapuur (pages 294-296 of JPB) 43 DTR 149 (Agr) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT (pages309-326 of JPB) ii) 1.13 Further, it is submitted that, in the instant case, transacti…

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…roboration through an independent source is a must which has not been done by Assessing Authority as has been held in the following cases: 1956 (SC) 9 Pangamban Kalanjoy Singh vs. State of Manipur i) 109 ITR 324 (Cal) CIT vs. Chrestin Vies Industries Ltd. ii) 96 ITR 646 (ker) CIT vs. Ms. Dris S. Luiz iii) iv) 108 TTJ 575 (Nag) S. K. Jain vs. JCIT 1.12 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Anupam Kapuur (pages 294-296 of JPB) 43 DTR 149 (Agr) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT (pages309-326 of JPB) ii) 1.13 Further, it is submitted that, in the instant case, transacti…

SH SURESH CHAND AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ACIT 4(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 357/AGR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AvocateFor Respondent: ShriInderjeet Singh, CIT DR

…of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income. This burden Assessment Year: 2011-12 does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, P.K. Palwankar Vs. CGT (1979) 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT Vs. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz (1974) 96 ITR 646 (Ker) on which also, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunals order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view no question of law arises. The application are accordingly, rejected." In the present case under appeal, since the assessee (appellant) has failed to establish that the admission mad…

SHINE STAR IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR (42), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4350/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ontrary to record-Confession made by the assessee during survey proceedings is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to establish that the same was not true and correct by filing cogent evidence-Additions rightly deleted. vii. ClT vs. Mrs Doris S Luiz 96 ITR 646 [Kerala] The stand taken by the assessee was that the money in question is in the nature of trust money, not impressed with the character of revenue receipt. On a careful analysis of the position, one is satisfied that the money was being held by the assessee in confidence for the benefit of the students going for overseas training and employment…

SHINE STAR IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR (42), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4349/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ontrary to record-Confession made by the assessee during survey proceedings is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to establish that the same was not true and correct by filing cogent evidence-Additions rightly deleted. vii. ClT vs. Mrs Doris S Luiz 96 ITR 646 [Kerala] The stand taken by the assessee was that the money in question is in the nature of trust money, not impressed with the character of revenue receipt. On a careful analysis of the position, one is satisfied that the money was being held by the assessee in confidence for the benefit of the students going for overseas training and employment…

SUNSHINE IMPORT & EXPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR (42), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4348/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ontrary to record-Confession made by the assessee during survey proceedings is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to establish that the same was not true and correct by filing cogent evidence-Additions rightly deleted. vii. ClT vs. Mrs Doris S Luiz 96 ITR 646 [Kerala] The stand taken by the assessee was that the money in question is in the nature of trust money, not impressed with the character of revenue receipt. On a careful analysis of the position, one is satisfied that the money was being held by the assessee in confidence for the benefit of the students going for overseas training and employment…

MANTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…ontrary to record-Confession made by the assessee during survey proceedings is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to establish that the same was not true and correct by filing cogent evidence-Additions rightly deleted. vii. ClT vs. Mrs Doris S Luiz 96 ITR 646 [Kerala] The stand taken by the assessee was that the money in question is in the nature of trust money, not impressed with the character of revenue receipt. On a careful analysis of the position, one is satisfied that the money was being held by the assessee in confidence for the benefit of the students going for overseas training and employment…

MANTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…ontrary to record-Confession made by the assessee during survey proceedings is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to establish that the same was not true and correct by filing cogent evidence-Additions rightly deleted. vii. ClT vs. Mrs Doris S Luiz 96 ITR 646 [Kerala] The stand taken by the assessee was that the money in question is in the nature of trust money, not impressed with the character of revenue receipt. On a careful analysis of the position, one is satisfied that the money was being held by the assessee in confidence for the benefit of the students going for overseas training and employment…

ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz

What is ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ClT v. Mrs Doris S Luiz

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU vs. KUDLUR RAMASWAMY SATHYANARAYANA, MYSURU

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

J C HOME TEX,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 7, JAIPUR

DCIT, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF, ALLAHABAD

M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF,ALLAHABAD vs. ACCT, ALLAHABAD

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

SH SURESH CHAND AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ACIT 4(1), AGRA

SHINE STAR IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR (42), MUMBAI

SHINE STAR IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR (42), MUMBAI

SUNSHINE IMPORT & EXPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR (42), MUMBAI

MANTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

MANTOR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI