D.N. Kamani (HUF) v. DCIT

70 ITD 77Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#3492 most cited

What is D.N. Kamani (HUF) v. DCIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot review a position already accepted in a prior assessment order if no material evidence is found during a search, especially when completing an assessment under Chapter XIV-B.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

D.N. Kamani (HUF) · 143(3) · Chapter XIV-B · search assessment · review of accepted accounts · no material evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 147Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 181section 23(3)section 114(e)percentage completion methodsection 80ib(10)circle ratesection 145(2)on-moneysection 131(1a)project completion methodsection 40a(ia)on money receipt

Judgments citing D.N. Kamani (HUF) v. DCIT

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2818/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…of "on money" by appellant having been found in respect of sale of flats to one party, addition could not be made in respect of all the parties to whom appellant sold flats merely on the basis of presumption as held in D.N.K. Kamani (HUF) v/s. Dy. CIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 TM (Pat.). In my considered opinion, the Special Auditor is not justified in deciphering the figures on the basis of seized documents based on unfounded presumptions and conjunctures without bringing any corroborative material evidence in support thereof, as held in the case of Atul Kumar Jain - Vs - DCIT, 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) due to following reason…

M/S Shivam Resorts, Abohar vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 427/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 427/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Shivam Resorts, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -1, Malout, Hamunangarh Road, बनाम Ludhiana Bye Pass, Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Accfs7094Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar,Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahus Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rahus Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 427/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Shivam Resorts, Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle -1, Malout, Hamunangarh Road, बनाम Ludhiana Bye Pass, Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ACCFS7094Q अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( HYBRID HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar,CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rahus Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hear…

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). These principles enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy.CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). 8.9. On the identical issue of LTCG on the sale of penny stock, where addition was made on the basis of Kolkata Investigation Wing Report, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investment vs ACIT [2021] 131 taxma…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the decision of ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1. These principals enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the decision of ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1. These principals enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the decision of ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1. These principals enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the decision of ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1. These principals enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the decision of ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1. These principals enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also…

Savaliya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…TD 19) that in the absence of any other evidence, AO is not empowered to estimate the suppression of sales for a larger period on the basis of the diary found in search showing suppression of sales for a particular period. (d) In the case of D. N. Kamani HUF (70 ITD 77) Hon'ble ITAT Patna Bench held that documents regarding receipt of on-money by assesses having been found in respect of sale of flats to one party, addition could not be made in respect of all the parties to whom assessee sold flats merely on the basis of presumption. (e) In the case of Fort Projects Pvt. Ltd (63 DTR 145) Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata Bench…

M/S. Savaliya Buildcon, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…TD 19) that in the absence of any other evidence, AO is not empowered to estimate the suppression of sales for a larger period on the basis of the diary found in search showing suppression of sales for a particular period. (d) In the case of D. N. Kamani HUF (70 ITD 77) Hon'ble ITAT Patna Bench held that documents regarding receipt of on-money by assesses having been found in respect of sale of flats to one party, addition could not be made in respect of all the parties to whom assessee sold flats merely on the basis of presumption. (e) In the case of Fort Projects Pvt. Ltd (63 DTR 145) Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata Bench…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 295/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…t and whether the assessee has derived any income from such transaction. In support of all the above arguments assessee also relied on ratio of the following decided cases. 1. Ashwni Kumar v/s ITO (1991) 39 ITD 286 (Delhi). 2. D.N.Kamani (HUF) v/s CIT (1999) 70 ITD 77, 113 (TM) 3. S.P.Goel V/s DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 Mumbai 4. CIT v/s Rajpalsingh Ramavat (2007) 288 ITR 498 (Allab) 5. Ram Traders v/s First Income Tax Officer, 25 ITD 599(TM) (Pat) 6. CIT v/s Dharampal Premchand Limited (2007) 295 ITR 105(Delhi) 7. CIT V/s Khazan Singh and borther (2008) 304 ITR 234(P&H) 8. CIT V/s R.K.Venketchanalam (2008) 301 ITR 2…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 180/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…t and whether the assessee has derived any income from such transaction. In support of all the above arguments assessee also relied on ratio of the following decided cases. 1. Ashwni Kumar v/s ITO (1991) 39 ITD 286 (Delhi). 2. D.N.Kamani (HUF) v/s CIT (1999) 70 ITD 77, 113 (TM) 3. S.P.Goel V/s DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 Mumbai 4. CIT v/s Rajpalsingh Ramavat (2007) 288 ITR 498 (Allab) 5. Ram Traders v/s First Income Tax Officer, 25 ITD 599(TM) (Pat) 6. CIT v/s Dharampal Premchand Limited (2007) 295 ITR 105(Delhi) 7. CIT V/s Khazan Singh and borther (2008) 304 ITR 234(P&H) 8. CIT V/s R.K.Venketchanalam (2008) 301 ITR 2…

Green Valley Home Developers P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT (CC) 13, Mumbai

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

ITA 5066/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.5065/Mum/2009 & 5066/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year :2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s. Green Valley Home Vs. ACIT-13, Mumbai Developers Pvt. Ltd., Glomax Mall, Shop No.43,44, Plot No.17,18,19, Station Road, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410 210 PAN/GIR No. AAACA4509R Appellant) .. Respondent) ITA No.5111/Mum/2009 & 5112/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year :2006-07 & 2007-08) ACIT-13, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Green Valley Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., Glomax Mall, Shop No.43,44, Plot No.17,18,19, Station Road, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410 210 PAN…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…od, extrapolation of the income to the whole period of reassessment is not justified. For this proposition, the ratio laid down in following cases supports my view:- a. Samrat Bear Bar vs ACIT (2000) 75 ITD 19 (Pune)(TM) b. D. N. Kamani (HUF) vs DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (TM)(Pat) c. CIT vs Mahesh Chand 199 ITR 247 (All.) d. Dr. S. S. Reddy vs ACIT (2000) 72 ITD 205 (Hyd) 6. So far as, the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee, that net profit rate should be adopted and not the gross profit is concerned, I am not agreeing with this proposition, because, in the present set off cases, the assessee has not…