Jaikishan Dadlani v. ITO

4 SOT 138Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#10620 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Jaikishan Dadlani v. ITO

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATER SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3174/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal/Saurabh GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT- DR)

Section 68

…oubt. It is also not disputed that BMPL had sufficient funds in its own books of accounts and reflected in bank statements, which establishes its creditworthiness. The appellant is not required to establish source of source as held in Jaikishan Dadiani vs ITO 4 SOT 138 (MUM). The appellant had offered explanation to the Assessing Officer but had not been able to submit all documentary evidences because the same were in custody of CBI. As already quoted above, in the appeal in the case of BMPL for AY 2010-11, the Id. CIT(A) 20, Kolkata had categorically observed that there is no material on record to back the find…

PRAKASH GODHWANI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 136/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.136/RPR/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs ITO-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/s Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(CG) PAN No. : AGLPG 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.B.Doshi, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR सुनिाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S DEV BHOOMI PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

…re Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 158 (SC) (vi) Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (ITAT, Mumbai) (vii) Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd., In Rel3 ITR 457 (Lahore) (viii) Jaikishan Dadlani vs. ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138 (ITAT, Mumbai) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in his order and has heavily placed reliance on the findings of learned CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the application money, received by assessee, is suppo…

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…v. SmtArchana Devi (2004) 84 TTJ (Jod-Trib) 467 23. ITO v. Laxman Das Makhija (2009) 26 (II) ITCL 517 (Agra-Trib) : (2009) 313 ITR 123 (Agra-Trib): (2009) 116 ITD 47 (Agra-Trib) 24. S. Hastimal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad) 25. JaikishanDadlani v. ITO (2005) 4 SOT 138 (Mum-Trib) 26. Prop. Dhawala Service Station v. CIT (1993) 113 Taxation 11 (Jp- Trib). 27. ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 73 CTR (Trib) 80 (Pune- Trib)(TM) 28. Jagadish Oil Mills v. ITO (1995) 52 TTJ (Ind-Trib) 102 29. CIT v. Shri Ram NarainGoel (1997) 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 30. Asstt. CIT v. Mahavir Metals & Alloys (2002) 75 TTJ (Asr-Trib) 256. 31. Kanha…

R S TRIVENI FOODS P.LTD, DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh,Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(ix)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 M/s. R.S. Triveni Foods P. Ltd. Addl. CIT, F-1739, DSIIDC Industrial Circle-20(2) Area, Narela, Delhi New Delhi. Pin 110 040 Vs. PAN AAFCR1392A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Department by : Smt. Rinku Singh,Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 09/05/2019 Date of / /2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 28.12.2018, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)…

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. HARSH DALMIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7459/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…oubt. It is also not disputed that BMPL had sufficient funds in its own books of accounts and reflected in bank statements, which establishes its creditworthiness. The appellant is not required to establish source of source as held in Jaikishan Dadlani vs ITO 4 SOT 138 (MUM). The appellant had offered explanation to the Assessing Officer but had not been able to submit all documentary evidences because the same were in custody of CBI. As already quoted above, in the appeal in the case of BMPL for AY 2010-11, the Id. CIT(A) 20, Kolkata had categorically observed that there is no material on record to back the find…

BALASORE ALLOYS LTD,ORRISSA vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Pawan Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1170/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri. N.P. Singh (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 253

…d forfeiture of zero-coupon convertible warrant, copy of which is available at page No. 90 to 99 of PB. In support of submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Coordinate Benches of Tribunal viz; Jaikishan Dadlani Versus ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138(Mumbai), Prism Cement Ltd Versus ACIT [2006] 101 ITD 103(Mumbai), DCIT Versus Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Ltd [2009] 118 ITD (AHD), Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Versus DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (Mumbai) and Asiatic Oxygen Ltd Versus DCIT [1994] 49 ITD 355 (Mumbai). It was argued that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI VIKRANT PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3376/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…sh. However, the fact remains that the funds were available with the creditor. I have also considered the case laws like CIT vs. Taj Borewells, (2007) 291 ITR 232 (Mad), CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd., (2009) 21 DTR (Del) 9, Jaikishan Dadlani vs. ITO, (2005) 4 SOT 138 (Mum) and Tolaram Daga vs. CIT, (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) wherein it has been held that source of source cannot be examined by the AO. If the AO has any doubt about the source of cash deposit (Rs. 2,00,000/--) in the account of the creditor, it can be considered in the hands of the creditor only and not in the hands of the appellant. The AO has me…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI VIKRANT PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3375/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI VIKRANT PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3377/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Shri Vikrant Puri, Central Circle-13, New Delhi A-1/36, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (Pan:Afypp9110K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ce-If the AO doubted the genuineness of the source of the partners, he could have made additions in the hands of the partners only and not in the hands of the firm-Addition under s. 68 was not therefore sustainable" 19 iii) Jaikishan oadlani vs. I TO, (2005) 4 SOT 138 (Mum) "Income from undisclosed sources-Cash credit-Genuineness-While examining applicability of s. 68, source of source cannot be investigated-Factum of borrowing and identity of creditor not being in doubt, no addition could be made under s. 68" iv) Tolaram oaga vs. CIT, (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) "Income from undisclosed sources-Burden of proof-Ca…