India Rice Mills v. CIT

218 ITR 508High Court1996#3231 most cited

What is India Rice Mills v. CIT authority for?

When partners make capital contributions to a firm, it is the partners' responsibility to explain the source of these funds. If they fail to do so, these contributions cannot be treated as the firm's income, even if recorded in the firm's books.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

India Rice Mills v. CIT · 218 ITR 508 · onus of proof · capital contribution · unexplained source · partnership firm · addition under section 68 · section 145(3) · section 271(1)(c) · section 68 · section 143(3)

Also reported as

85 Taxmann 227

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 68Section 144Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbesection 2(9)section 256(1)section 66section 256section 116onus of proofsection 155survey under section 133asection 269ssaddition under section 68section 271d

Judgments citing India Rice Mills v. CIT

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 471/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…ot in the hands of the firm. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and hence the view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 470/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…ot in the hands of the firm. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and hence the view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 469/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…ot in the hands of the firm. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and hence the view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 468/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…ot in the hands of the firm. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and hence the view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Deepsons Southened

ITA/1008/2018HC Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…ITA 1008/2018 Page 1 of 8 $~6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 11.08.2023 + ITA 1008/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Shivansh B. Pandya, Standing Counsel and Mr Utkash Tiwari, Adv. versus DEEPSONS SOUTHENED ..... Respondent Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr R.R. Maurya, Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr Anshul Mittal, Advs. + ITA…

M/S. Hemant Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 1422/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

…d in trading concern? The Ld. CIT(A) not considered the facts that the Hon,ble ITAT deleted the adhoc additions fully in similar cases. We relied on the following judgments of the higher forum:- ITO V/S Nityasudha Combines V/s ITA Chennai. Rice Mills Vs CIT 218 ITR 508, Allahabad High Court. CIT VS M Venkatesh Road and Others (2015) 370 ITR 215 Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh High Court. M/s Fancy Wear V/S ITO Ward 24(3)(1), ITA No. 1596/1597/Mum/2016 dt. 20/09/2017. Shri Hiralal Chunilal Jain V/S ITO Ward 14(1)(4), ITA No. 4547/1275/Mum/2014 dt. 01/01/2016. M/s Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT Ward 21(1), ITA No. 295…

Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 840/BANG/2022[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…ot in the hands of the firm. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and hence the view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” 12.5 In view of the above, we direct the AO to delete all these additions made by him and sustained by CIT(A) as discussed above. 13. Next addition is with regard to u…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rna Electro Corporation v) 11 TMI 630 (P&H) CIT v. Metal & Metals of India vi) 208 CTR 459 (P&H) C1T v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 UR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 221 ITR 239 (All) Surendra Mahan Seth v. CIT xi) 263 CTR 612 (All) Zafa Ahmad and Co. v. CIT xii) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Perwez Ahmad and Others xiii) 282 CTR 200 (Pat) CIT v. Anurag Rice Mills xiv) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Parwez Ahmad 30 I.T.A.No.836/Del/2022 xv) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar.) Prayag Tendu Lea…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…account could not be treated as unexplained cash credit in P a g e 4 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17 the hands of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of India Rice Mills Vs. CIT, (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All), wherein, it has been categorically held that “whether since all deposits came to be made before assessee-firm started its business, onus was on partners to explain source thereof and if they failed amount could have been added in their hands only and not in hands of the assessee firm”. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras Hi…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 577/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [in I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [PAN: AAKFN6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [in I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [PAN: AAKFN6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""…

Champ Info Software, Noida vs. Prcit, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Champ Info Software, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, E-24, Sector-55, A2, D Block, Sector 24, Noida. Noida (U.P.)-201301 Vs

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…11 TMI 630 (P&H) CIT v. Metal & Metals of India 5 Assessment year 2013-14 vi) 208 CTR 459 (P&H) CIT v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 ITR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 221 ITR 239 (All) Surendra Mahan Seth v. CIT xi) 263 CTR 612 (All) Zafa Ahmad and Co. v. CIT xii) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Perwez Ahmad and Others xiii) 282 CTR 200 (Pat) CIT v. Anurag Rice Mills xiv) 268 ITR 381(Pat) CIT v. Md. Parwez Ahmad xv) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar.) Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT xvi…

Ams Roadlines, Hisar vs. DCIT, Hisar Circle, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3734/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ams Roadlines, Vs. Dcit, 160, Urban Estate-Ii, Hisar Circle, Hisar, Haryana. Hisar. Pan: Aamfa1122B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 68

…sessee submitted that the capital introduced by any of the partners has to be taxed in the hands of the partner and not in the hands of the firm. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of India Rice Mills vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 508, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that it was for the partners to explain the source of the deposits and if they fail to discharge the onus, then, such 2 deposits could be added in the hands of the partners only. He submitted that various Benches of the Tribunal are also taking this consistent view that addit…

Arjun Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Firozabad vs. I.T.O.-5(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 290/AGR/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 68

…orage P. Ltd’, ITA No.345/Agr/2009 ii. (Agra Tribunal). ‘M/s Garg Preservation (P.) Ltd., ITA No.79/Agra/2012, (Agra iii. Tribunal). ‘Sugandhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd. Vs. Department of Income Tax, ITA iv. No.368/Agra/2010 (Agra Tribunal). ‘India Rice Mills’, 218 ITR 508 Allahabad High Court. v. ‘Shastri Construction Co. vs. Department of Income Tax’. vi. ‘Mitesh Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Vs. CIT’, 258 ITR 278 (Guj). vii. viii. ‘ITO vs. M/s Divya Fuels’, ITA No. 134/Hyd/2011. ‘Surendra Prasad Mishra’, 7 SOT 457 Lucknow Bench. ix. ‘Sai Baba Rupadas’, ITA 1543/98 (Delhi Trib.). x. ‘Ghabiabad Footwear’, 142 Taxman…

M/S Karni Maa International, Jaipur vs. The ITO, Ward 6 (2), Jaipur

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

ITA 527/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)
Section 144Section 40A(3)

…t be held as unexplained cash credit in the hand of partnership firm. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:- • CIT vs. Kewal Krishan & Partners 18DTR 121. • CIT vs. Pandian Distributors 259ITR 428. • India Rice Mills v. CIT 218 ITR 508,511. • CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. 294ITR 661. 9 ITA 527/JP/15_ M/s Karni Maa International Vs. ITO • Abhudaya Pharmaceuticals v. CIT 32 Taxmann.com 68. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is not obliged to establish the source of course in as much as this is the first year of operation of assessee’s business. Even otherwise the ass…

M/S. Shri Gems, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2912/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shri Gems, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/2441, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Ward-33(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcfs2245L Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-28, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 234BSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 2912/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shri Gems, Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/2441, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Ward-33(2), New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCFS2245L Assessee by : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 12.02.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-28, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:…

Kwality Construction, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-33(2), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 2746/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…does ITA No.2746/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Kwalaity Constrn. Vs. ITO Wd-33(2) Kol. Page 6 not arise in the hands of partnership firm. In this connection, Ld. AR has relied in the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of India Rice Mills Vs. CIT 218 ITR 508 AND Surendra Mahan Seth Vs. CIT 221 ITR 239. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. 11. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion, we find that AO has made the addition for the amount of capital contribution made by the…