DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd.

329 ITR 1High Court2010#2258 most cited

What is DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd. authority for?

Section 115BBE, which imposes a higher tax rate on unexplained income, does not apply to income that can be identified as arising from other sources.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd. · 329 ITR 1 · Section 115BBE · Section 68 · Section 69C · other source of income · unexplained income · applicability of 115BBE · on money receipt · high tax rate

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 68Section 131Section 131(1A)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Issues it is cited on

on money receiptsection 292cdumb documentsbeneficial ownersection 115bbsection 115bsection 292section 115bbeon-moneysection 29section 251section 69c

Judgments citing DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd.

Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd ( Now Known As Kimplas Piping Systems Ltd), Nashik vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Asst

ITA 962/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia (Jm) & Shri Ramit Kochar (Am) Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Keyuri DesaiFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 292

…. AR further submitted that the present issue is covered by the following decisions:- 1) CIT vs. Chetan Gupta 382 ITR 613 (Delhi High Court) 2) ITO vs. Smt. Sukhini P. Modi 367 ITR 682 (Guj. High Court) 3) Abacus Distribution Systems (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 29 ITR 1 (Mum. Tribunal) 4) Raj Kumar Chawla & Ors. Vs. ITO 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB) 5) ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362(SC) 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the objections of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was asked to provide the proof as to whether the objections raised by the assessee were against the reopening of assessment during assess…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Rahil Agencies, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4413/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…mises of the assessee and the main object of the firm is to carrying on the 5 Rahil Agencies business of diamond. This judgment has been considered in later decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. [2010] 29 ITR 1 and CIT Vs.Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No.290 of 2013. In the case of DCIT Vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. [2010] 29 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that :- “26. The decisions of this court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Guj) and Krishna Textiles [2009] 310 ITR 227 (Guj) are neither re…

Shivansh Realty P.Ltd, Uran vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5668/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…tention that statement of Shri Dilip Dherai post search require equal consideration which the AO has ignored. It may also be pertinent to draw your honour's attention to a recent decision by Gujarat High Court in the case of DIT Vs Radhe Developers India Ltd [329 ITR 1]. In this decision, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that addition in the assessment order based on the seized material cannot be sustained unless some other corroborative evidence to justify the addition is brought on record . In view of the above, and facts of the case your honour is required to direct the assessing officer to delete the a…

Shivansh Land Infrastructure P.Ltd, Uran vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5665/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…tention that statement of Shri Dilip Dherai post search require equal consideration which the AO has ignored. It may also be pertinent to draw your honour's attention to a recent decision by Gujarat High Court in the case of DIT Vs Radhe Developers India Ltd [329 ITR 1]. In this decision, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that addition in the assessment order based on the seized material cannot be sustained unless some other corroborative evidence to justify the addition is brought on record . In view of the above, and facts of the case your honour is required to direct the assessing officer to delete the a…

Timble Realty P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5664/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…tention that statement of Shri Dilip Dherai post search require equal consideration which the AO has ignored. It may also be pertinent to draw your honour's attention to a recent decision by Gujarat High Court in the case of DIT Vs Radhe Developers India Ltd [329 ITR 1]. In this decision, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that addition in the assessment order based on the seized material cannot be sustained unless some other corroborative evidence to justify the addition is brought on record . In view of the above, and facts of the case your honour is required to direct the assessing officer to delete the a…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2809/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

…ncome is not known, such deemed income will not fall under the head “income from other sources” and accordingly will not be available for set-off under section 71 of the Act. 15. In a subsequent judgment in the case of DCIT versus Radhey developers India Ltd, 329 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the income tax Act envisages every income under any of the heads specified in section 14 of the Act. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court are as under: “15. The decisions of this Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan (supra) and Krishna Textiles (supra) are neither relevant nor germane to the i…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2808/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

…ncome is not known, such deemed income will not fall under the head “income from other sources” and accordingly will not be available for set-off under section 71 of the Act. 15. In a subsequent judgment in the case of DCIT versus Radhey developers India Ltd, 329 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the income tax Act envisages every income under any of the heads specified in section 14 of the Act. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court are as under: “15. The decisions of this Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan (supra) and Krishna Textiles (supra) are neither relevant nor germane to the i…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Asian Star Diamonds Iternational P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4412/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…The loss has not been incurred on confiscation. Further, this decision in the case of Fakir Mohammed on this issue has not been accepted in the subsequent decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Radhe Developers India Ltd reported in (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj) where it is held that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. This view of the Gujarat High Court has been followed in Chensing Venture vs CIT (2007) 163 Taxman 175 (Mad). 4.9.4. The assessing officer has explained that section 68/690 represent deemed income which is distinct from the…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. 'A' Star Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4411/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…The loss has not been incurred on confiscation. Further, this decision in the case of Fakir Mohammed on this issue has not been accepted in the subsequent decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Radhe Developers India Ltd reported in (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj) where it is held that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. This view of the Gujarat High Court has been followed in Chensing Venture vs CIT (2007) 163 Taxman 175 (Mad). 4.9.4. The assessing officer has explained that section 68/690 represent deemed income which is distinct from the…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. U.K. Construcitons, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4472/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…. On the issue of ownership of the land for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10), there is no requirement that the land should be owned by the assessee enterprise as has been held in the various Judgments including the following:- a) CIT Vs. Radh Developers [2010 329 ITR 1 ] [Gujarat HC] b) CIT Vs. Vishal Constructions [2013 35 taxmann.com182] [Guj. HC.] c) ITO Vs. Sai Krupa Developers ITA No. 3661/Mum/2011 7. In support of its contention that the Grampanchayat is a competent local authority, the assessee has relied upon the following decisions:- a) KRISHNA NAHRUBHAU LOHOKARE V/s ITO [Income Tax Act NO.937/PN/2010…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. U.K. Construciton, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4471/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…. On the issue of ownership of the land for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10), there is no requirement that the land should be owned by the assessee enterprise as has been held in the various Judgments including the following:- a) CIT Vs. Radh Developers [2010 329 ITR 1 ] [Gujarat HC] b) CIT Vs. Vishal Constructions [2013 35 taxmann.com182] [Guj. HC.] c) ITO Vs. Sai Krupa Developers ITA No. 3661/Mum/2011 7. In support of its contention that the Grampanchayat is a competent local authority, the assessee has relied upon the following decisions:- a) KRISHNA NAHRUBHAU LOHOKARE V/s ITO [Income Tax Act NO.937/PN/2010…