Gopi Ram Lia v. CIT

225 ITR 320Reported decision1997#10622 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Gopi Ram Lia v. CIT

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. MRS. NITTA VINODKUMAR JATIYA , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

…f Panvel and is not assessed to land revenue. As per the Allahabad High Court in the case of Srnt, Anand Bala Bhushan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (217 ITR 144), the produce from this land is not agricultural income. In the case of Gopi Ram Lila Vs CIT (Raj) 225 ITR 320, Rakhkarandas Poonamchand Bhura Vs CIT(MP) 231 ITR 604 the courts have held that when assessee claims exemption as gricultural income, it is the duty of assessee to substantiate it and the unsubstantiated portion can be treated as income from other sources. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, the amount of Rs. 1,03,02,193/- shown as agri…

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2021AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ant failed to furnish any evidences, his claim of agricultural income is a bald claim, which cannot be accepted. The above view gets support from the decision in the case of Avdhesh Kumar Jain Vs. CIT reported in 178 ITR 433; Gopi Ram Lila Vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 320; Ridhkaran Das Poonam Chand Bhura Vs. CIT reported in 231 ITR 604; and Smt. Kamala Bai Vs. CIT reported in 221 ITR 674. In the light of the facts discussed above, it is held that the appellant's claim that payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- out of the agricultural income remains to be proved. Hence, the AO's action in treating Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplai…

M/S KAMAL TRADING COMPANY,RAICHUR vs. CIT, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 932/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaranm/S Kamal Trading Company, Plot No.10, Shop No.80, Rajendra Gunj, Raichur, Pan No.Aagfk0247F Appellant Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.102, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Rod, Kalaburagi Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri .Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri .Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 39(1)Section 43(3)Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…ment proceedings that the return of income has been filed belatedly. The assessee has failed to do so. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ca of CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Limited (SC) 19 ITR 191., CIT Vs R.Venkataswamy Naidu (SC) 29 ITR 529, and Gopi Ram Lila Vs CIT(Raj.) 225 ITR 320 has held that to claim any exemption/deduction, duty of assessee to substantiate it with records and evidences. Moreover, the AO has no discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the return of income so as to allow deduction u/s 80IA r.w.80AC of the Act. The fact of the matter is that the return of income was filed belatedly and as per th…

SHRI RAKESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1879/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1879/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Rakesh Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, Kolkata – 700 016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adlpa6462E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri V.N. Purohit & H.V. Bhartwaj, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata Dated 14.06.2017 Passed In Case No.83/Cit(A)-10/Ward-36(1)/2016-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal. His Former Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Agricultural Income Claim Involving An Amount Of Rs.2,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer In His Assessment Order Dated 04.03.16 Observed That Although The Assessee Had Filed His Written Submissions Making Self-Declaration Of The Agricultural Land Deed Amount Received From Two Different Farmers, The Same Merely Amounted To A Self-Serving Document Without Any Supporting Evidence He Thus Disallowed The Assessee’S Claim.

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit & H.V. Bhartwaj, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 1ASection 2Section 2(14)

…duty of the assessee to fully substantiate it, and if this is not done, the impugned receipt can be taxed as income from "Other Sources". Such ratio emanates from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gopi Chand Lila Vs CIT( Raj) 225 ITR 320 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ridhkarandas Poonamchand Bhura Vs CIT(MP) 231 ITR 604. With such view in consideration, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant- assessee, and therefore confirm the action of the Ld. AO. The ground of appeal accordingly stands dismissed.” 4. L…

A.S.LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1077/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1073 to 1077/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2009-10 A.S. Leasing & Finance Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCA 2305 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 08/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 15/03/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: All the captioned five appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of CIT(A…

A.S.LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1076/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1073 to 1077/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2009-10 A.S. Leasing & Finance Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCA 2305 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 08/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 15/03/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: All the captioned five appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of CIT(A…

A.S.LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1075/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1073 to 1077/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2009-10 A.S. Leasing & Finance Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCA 2305 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 08/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 15/03/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: All the captioned five appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of CIT(A…

A.S.LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1074/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1073 to 1077/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2009-10 A.S. Leasing & Finance Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCA 2305 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 08/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 15/03/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: All the captioned five appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of CIT(A…

A.S.LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1073/HYD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1073 to 1077/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2009-10 A.S. Leasing & Finance Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCA 2305 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 08/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 15/03/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: All the captioned five appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of CIT(A…

SOHAM TRADING AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4579/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4579/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Soham Trading & Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Investments Private Limited Income Tax-7(2) V. Mahalaxmi Industrial Estate Mumbai Ground Floor, L.J.Road No.1 Mahim(West) Mumbai- 400016 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcs4422J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 56

…rding to the common notions of practical men has to be determined and accordingly charged to tax under the specific head of income relying on the decision in the case of Nalinikant Mody v. Narayan Row 61 ITR 428(SC) , CIT v. New India 201 ITR 208, Gopi v. CIT 225 ITR 320. ITA 4579/Mum/2012 4 The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee as it was held by the AO that the income from sub-leased assets does not come within the purview of business income as an act of taking a single property on lease from a related concern and giving the same on sub-lease cannot be termed as a business activity. It was observed by…