Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

…Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the credits were found\nin the business accounts of the assessee and the explanation as to\nhow the amounts came to be received was rejected, such credits\ncan be treated as business income.\n(2) Daulat Ram Rawatmal Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 (Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt) :\nWhen there is nothing on record that the assessee had any other\nsource of income other than business income, it is reasonable to\nhold that any amount representing secret income arose out of the\nbusiness of the assessee.\n(3)Jadhav Kangralkar Builders Vs. ACIT, Satara (ITA\nNo.12106/PUN/2017 (ITAT, B Bench, Pune) dt 2…

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

…Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the credits were found\nin the business accounts of the assessee and the explanation as to\nhow the amounts came to be received was rejected, such credits\ncan be treated as business income.\n(2) Daulat Ram Rawatmal Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 (Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt) :\nWhen there is nothing on record that the assessee had any other\nsource of income other than business income, it is reasonable to\nhold that any amount representing secret income arose out of the\nbusiness of the assessee.\n(3)Jadhav Kangralkar Builders Vs. ACIT, Satara (ITA\nNo.12106/PUN/2017 (ITAT, B Bench, Pune) dt 2…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…cently followed by the honble ITAT Jaipur bench Jaipur in the case of Jagdish Kumar Arora v/s DCIT Central Circle Kota in ITA No. 1195/Jp/2024 dt. 11.02.2025. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull vs. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 593, wherein Calcutta High Court held as under: “ 59/61. In the instant case the assessee is a firm formed for the purpose of carrying on business. There is nothing on record to show that the firm had any source of income other than business. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not unreasonable to hold that any amount representing secret income arose ou…

BHAGWATI PRASAD KHANDELWAL ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Learned Ao & Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add, Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

…The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the credits were found in the business accounts of the assessee and the explanation as to how the amounts came to be received was rejected, such credits can be treated as business income. (3) Daulat Ram Rawatmal vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 (Hon’ble Supreme Court): When there is nothing on record that the assessee had any other source of income other than business income, it is reasonable to hold that any amount representing secret income arose out of the business of the assessee. (4) Jadhav Kangralkar Builders Vs. ACIT, Satara (ITA No. 12106/PUN/2017 (ITAT, B Bench, Pune) dt. 26.8/2…

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…61 ITR 428, the Supreme Court has held that whether an income falls under one head or another has to be decided according to the common notions of practical man because the Act does not provide any guidance in the matter.  Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 593, it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that where a credit entry is found in the business accounts of an assessee and the explanation as to how the amount came to be received is rejected by the Income tax authorities and the amount is taken to be income from an undisclosed source, such income can be treated as business income, if the assesse…

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

…of account maintained by the assessee which itself justifies that the department itself believes that the stock belongs only to the business of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull vs. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 593, wherein Calcutta High Court held as under: “ 59/61. In the instant case the assessee is a firm formed for the purpose of carrying on business. There is nothing on record to show that the firm had any source of income other than business. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not unreasonable to hold that any amount representing secret income arose ou…

PREM LATA PANDYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

…The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the credits were found in the business accounts of the assessee and the explanation as to how the amounts came to be received was rejected, such credits can be treated as business income. (2) Daulat Ram Rawatmal Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 (Hon’ble Supreme Court): When there is nothing on record that the assessee had any other source of income other than business income, it is reasonable to hold that any amount representing secret income arose out of the business of the assessee. (3) Jadhav Kangralkar Builders Vs. ACIT, Satara (ITA No.12106/PUN/2017 (ITAT, B Bench, Pune) dt 26/8/202…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…nath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. Similar views have been taken in Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITR 593, Mansfield & Sons vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 254, besides others. It is submitted that the unexplained stock in trade is not covered by section 69B. Reference is also invited to Addl. CIT v. Danyabhai Pitamberdas & Co. [1974] Taxation 36(1) 25-26 (Guj.). 15. It is respectfully submitted that sans section 68 to section 69D, section 115BBE cannot be in…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…nath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. Similar views have been taken in Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITR 593, Mansfield & Sons vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 254, besides others. It is submitted that the unexplained stock in trade is not covered by section 69B. Reference is also invited to Addl. CIT v. Danyabhai Pitamberdas & Co. [1974] Taxation 36(1) 25-26 (Guj.). 15. It is respectfully submitted that sans section 68 to section 69D, section 115BBE cannot be in…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…nath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. Similar views have been taken in Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITR 593, Mansfield & Sons vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 254, besides others. It is submitted that the unexplained stock in trade is not covered by section 69B. Reference is also invited to Addl. CIT v. Danyabhai Pitamberdas & Co. [1974] Taxation 36(1) 25-26 (Guj.). 15. It is respectfully submitted that sans section 68 to section 69D, section 115BBE cannot be in…

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

…of account maintained by the assessee which itself justifies that the department itself believes that the stock belongs only to the business of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull vs. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 593, wherein Calcutta High Court held as under: “ 59/61. In the instant case the assessee is a firm formed for the purpose of carrying on business. There is nothing on record to show that the firm had any source of income other than business. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not 14 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota unreasonable to hold that any…