(i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT

40 SOT 475Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#4554 most cited

What is (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT authority for?

An addition cannot be sustained if it is based solely on the investigation wing's report or third-party statements, especially when supported by documentary evidence.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT · 40 SOT 475 · 2010 · ITAT · investigation wing report · third party statements · documentary evidence · genuineness of transaction · bogus long term capital gain · unexplained cash credit · section 10(38) · section 68

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus long term capital gainpenny stocksection 10(38)long term capital gainsaccommodation entrylong term capital gaingenuineness of the transactionsection 10section 131unexplained cash creditundisclosed income

Judgments citing (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT

Rukmini Devi Manpuria, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1724/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rukmini Devi Manpuria -Vs- Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Axapm 3836 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…case, the Hon’ble High Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another , addition cannot be sustained. Similar view was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) 12 13 Rukmini Devi Manpuria A.Yr. 2014-15 (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padducha…

Kiran Kothari HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

…ion Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO – ITA No. 1213/Kol…

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…case, the Hon’ble High Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another , addition cannot be sustained. Similar view was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO – ITA No. 452/H…

Manish Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1236/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…case, the Hon’ble High Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another , addition cannot be sustained. Similar view was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO – ITA No. 452/H…

Sunil Prakash, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

ITA 6494/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई मुंबई ई ई ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ ई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6494/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Sunil Praka…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…n held that there was no material before the AO which could have led to a conclusion that transaction was simplicitor a device to camouflage activities to defraud revenue. The assessee then relied on the decision in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Bibi Rani Bansal, 44 SOT 500 (2011) (Agra) (TM), Acchyalal Shaw vs. ITO 121 TTJ ITA No. 5954/Mum-2014 13 695 (Kol)(2009), ITO vs. Kusumlata 105 TTJ 265(Jodh)(2006), Km. Saumya Agrawal vs. ITO 174 Taxman 60(Agra)(TM)(2008), CIT vs. Smt. Rajnidevi A. Chowdhary, ITA No. 1333 of 2008( Bom), CIT vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agarwal & Ors. 328 ITR 656(Bom)(2010) and ITO, Ward 3(2), Thane v…