GaurishankerOmkarmal v. ITO

101 ITD 337Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#5921 most cited

What is GaurishankerOmkarmal v. ITO authority for?

Jewellery to the extent of prescribed limits in CBDT Instruction No. 1916 is not to be treated as acquired from unexplained sources.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gaurishanker Omkarmal v. ITO · 101 ITD 337 · ITAT · CBDT Instruction No. 1916 · unexplained sources · jewellery · explained income · seizure criteria

Judgments citing GaurishankerOmkarmal v. ITO

CH.CHANDRASEKHAR NAIDU ,PRODDATUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 834/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 37

…r unmarried lady; and (iii) 100 grams per male member of the\nfamily. The aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (supra) had thereafter been\nlooked into by the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, viz., ITAT, Jodhpur\nBench in DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani (2006) 101 ITD 337 (Jodh) and\nITAT Jabalpur Bench in case of Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal vs. DCIT\n(2004) 90 TTJ 974 (Jab), wherein it was observed that the jewellery to the\nextent of the prescribed limit contemplated in the CBDT Instruction No. 1916\n(supra) is not to be treated as having been acquired by the assessee out of\nunexplained sources. For the sake of…

KANCHAN BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1756/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhuand, Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ms. Kanchan Bhalla Income Tax, Farm No.04, Hyde Park, Central Circle -8, Prakriti Marg, New Delhi. Village-Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 Pan No. Afepb 9423 R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ms. Kanchan Bhalla Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Farm No.04, Hyde Park Income Tax, Prakriti Marg, Central Circle -8, Village-Sultanpur, New Delhi. Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Sh. R. P. Mall, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he exclusion of comparison item by item, has been prescribed as the decision making criterion for effecting seizure. iii. Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. ACIT 149 Taxman 36 (Del) iv. GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) v. DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) vi. Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos.455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) vii. Raj Kumar B Agrawal Vs DCIT 176 DTR (Pune) Trib 273 viii. Modi (ITA ACIT vs Krishan Kumar 2892 to 2894/Del/2017&3952 to 3956/Del /2017 dated 05.07.2019) (b) The second being the learned AO had conveniently ignored that the assessee held…

SH. MAHENDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…to be seized , may be treated as explained and quoted several case laws: CIT vs. Ms Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) DTR 169 (MR) GITvs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy. CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha vs. Asstt. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (visakha) Smt. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT TTJ 974 (Jab) 5.1 I have considered the submissions of the assessee and the impugned assessment order. The Ld AO had proceeded to add the entire amount as no explanation to the source of the jewellery was provided. The assessee in his subm…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3956/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3955/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3954/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3952/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2894/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2892/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…n support, the counsel placed reliance on various decisions, some of which are as under: - Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax: 149 Taxman 36 (Del) - GaurishankerOmkarmal vs. ITO: 37 TTJ 353 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Arjun DassKalwani: 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) - Sh. Arvind Agarwal and Sh. Subhash Agarwal: I.T.A. Nos. 455, 277, 278 & 443/Ind/2013 (Indore) 8.8 It was further argued that the Board, in the Instruction issued, has emphasized on the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return rather than the description. This is for the 51 ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 reason…

MRS. SUNITA BERIWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5499/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Sunita Beriwala, C/O- M/S. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Arora & Bansal, Ca, 1401, Tax, Central Circle-2, New Delhi Vikram Tower, 16 , Rajendra Place, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aejpb3096E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Ms. Sunita Beriwala, 15/10, Room No. 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 132(4)Section 254(2)Section 69B

…ment. Further, the ld. AR submitted that item-wise reconciliation does not hold good when sufficient funds were declared for conversion of the jewellery. The ld AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Arjun Kalwani, (2006) 101 ITD 337 (JD) and the decision of Kolkata Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Rajkumar Sarogi in ITA No. 1776/Kol/2012 and IT(SS)A No. 97/Kol/2012 . 10. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the findings of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee failed to submit evidence in respect of remodelling/conversion of jewellery. 11. We…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUNITA BERIWALA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5408/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Sunita Beriwala, C/O- M/S. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Arora & Bansal, Ca, 1401, Tax, Central Circle-2, New Delhi Vikram Tower, 16 , Rajendra Place, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aejpb3096E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Ms. Sunita Beriwala, 15/10, Room No. 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 132(4)Section 254(2)Section 69B

…ment. Further, the ld. AR submitted that item-wise reconciliation does not hold good when sufficient funds were declared for conversion of the jewellery. The ld AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Arjun Kalwani, (2006) 101 ITD 337 (JD) and the decision of Kolkata Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Rajkumar Sarogi in ITA No. 1776/Kol/2012 and IT(SS)A No. 97/Kol/2012 . 10. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the findings of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee failed to submit evidence in respect of remodelling/conversion of jewellery. 11. We…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 81/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69

…. Case laws on which reliance is made by the AR as follows:. CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP) CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha Vs. Asst. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Sint. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) 6. The AR further submitted as relates to Ground No.3 that Ld.AO made addition of Rs.88,900/- on the ground that assessee had turnover Rs. 68.89 lakhs on which assessee has declared income at the rate of 8% but section 4…

MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 6396/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69

…. Case laws on which reliance is made by the AR as follows:. CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP) CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha Vs. Asst. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Sint. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) 6. The AR further submitted as relates to Ground No.3 that Ld.AO made addition of Rs.88,900/- on the ground that assessee had turnover Rs. 68.89 lakhs on which assessee has declared income at the rate of 8% but section 4…

ACIT CC 25, MUMBAI vs. PARLE BOTTLING P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/MUM/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 1998-99 Acit, M/S Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Cc-25, Room No.404, Western Express Highway, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri (East), Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-4000099 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacp8417H Shri Arvind Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Firoze Ahdhyarajina

Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…the number of diamonds embedded in the each item of the jewellery matched with that of the valuation report. 11. The Ld. A.R. has further invited our attention to the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani” 101 ITD 337 wherein the Tribunal has held that simply because the assessee could not lead evidence for conversion or remaking of the jewellery, possession of which was otherwise accepted, it could not be said that holding of gold jewellery to that extent was unexplained, especially when evidence was available that the assessee had already been assessed at mu…

LATE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA THROUGH L.H SHRI SUSHIL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 20(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2783/MUM/2014[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 1988-89 Late Shri Mahavir Gupta Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Shri Ward-12(3)(1), बनाम/ Sushil Gupta, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 161-C, Mittal Tower, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aalpg1065E

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ry matched with that of the valuation report. 14 Late Shri Mahavir Gupta through legal heir Shri Sushil Gupta 11. The Ld. A.R. has further invited our attention to the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani” 101 ITD 337 wherein the Tribunal has held that simply because the assessee could not lead evidence for conversion or remaking of the jewellery, possession of which was otherwise accepted, it could not be said that holding of gold jewellery to that extent was unexplained, especially when evidence was available that the assessee had already been assessed at mu…

NEELA P. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 9, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2009-10 Smt. Neela P. Doshi, The Asst. Comm. Of Income Acme Ghar, 19 K.D. Road, Tax, बनाम/ Ville Parle (W), Central Circle-9, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpd6490Q

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…the number of diamonds embedded in the each item of the jewellery matched with that of the valuation report. 11. The Ld. A.R. has further invited our attention to the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani” 101 ITD 337 wherein the Tribunal has held that simply because the assessee could not lead evidence for conversion or remaking of the jewellery, possession of which was otherwise accepted, it could not be said that holding of gold jewellery to that extent was unexplained, especially when evidence was available that the assessee had already been assessed at mu…

GaurishankerOmkarmal v. ITO (101 ITD 337) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax