Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT (130 ITR 244)

SH. KULDEEP SRIVASTAVA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), MATHURA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 227/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(3)Section 257Section 68

…ssessed in its hand and, therefore, if any income is taxed in the hand of the assesse(appellant), it would amount to double taxation, it also not acceptable because it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamna Prasad Kahhaiya Lal vs. CIT 130 ITR 244(SC) that there is nothing in law to prevent the revenue to tax the income in the hand toto which it actually belongs, notwithstanding the facts that such income is shown by someone else and assessed. In this case, the facts are that in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68, relevant to the accounting year ending…

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…ility or otherwise of the addition. Reference in this regard may be made in the decision CIT v. Jauharimal Goel [2008] 296 ITR 263 (All), as indeed to decisions in CIT v. Radhe Shyam Tibrewal [1984] 145 ITR 186 (SC); and Jamna Prasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 244 (SC). The accounts, it may be appreciated, only form part of the assessee’s explanation. It is this that led us to state of the addition for both the years being on account of unexplained investment; its routing through accounts, where so, notwithstanding, which cannot be allowed to be a ruse (see para 4.6). As explained in CIT v. S. Kamaraj Pand…

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…ility or otherwise of the addition. Reference in this regard may be made in the decision CIT v. Jauharimal Goel [2008] 296 ITR 263 (All), as indeed to decisions in CIT v. Radhe Shyam Tibrewal [1984] 145 ITR 186 (SC); and Jamna Prasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 244 (SC). The accounts, it may be appreciated, only form part of the assessee’s explanation. It is this that led us to state of the addition for both the years being on account of unexplained investment; its routing through accounts, where so, notwithstanding, which cannot be allowed to be a ruse (see para 4.6). As explained in CIT v. S. Kamaraj Pand…

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA

Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

…ent dated 03/1/2007, justifying the same. The return of the capital gain by two sellers is of no consequence; the same being only be give effect to the benami transitions (refer: ITO v. Rattan Lal [1984] 145 ITR 183 (SC); Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 244 (SC)). 26 | P a g e Dy. CIT v. T.G. Chandrakumar Why, the money to pay the tax is itself either unexplained (Rs. 3.45 lacs) or comes from the assessee (or his family member) (Rs. 6.40 lacs), who stands the benefit by off-loading his tax liability. Scrutiny of the material led to demonstrate utilization of sale proceeds, not banked, reveals it to…

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1, THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES , THANE

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…s : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand report dated 10.2.2017 of the AO has been erroneously reproduced in the impugned order of Ld CIT(A). The extract of the affidavit are reproduced as under “After verfication of the above remand report and order No.NSK/CIT(A)- 1/25…

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1 , THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES, THANE

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…s : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand report dated 10.2.2017 of the AO has been erroneously reproduced in the impugned order of Ld CIT(A). The extract of the affidavit are reproduced as under “After verfication of the above remand report and order No.NSK/CIT(A)- 1/25…

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…e looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 6.2.5 In yet another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs. CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the scope of immunity u/s. 24 of F.No.(2) Act 1965 held that the immunity provided cannot be invoked in assessment proceedings relevant to any person other than the person making declaration under the " Act. In that case, the firm Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal had shown cash credits in the names of 5 sons of Ka…

RAGHAV SOFTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…e looking at the documents produced before them. They, were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 4.4. In yet-another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs. CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Hon'ble Apex Court while 28 considering the scope of immunity u/s. 24 of F.No.{2) Act 1965 held that the immunity provided cannot be. Invoked in assessment proceedings relevant to any person other than the person making declaration under the Act. In that case, the firm Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalai had shown cash credits in the names of 5 sons of…

SHRI GOVIND RATHI, PROP. GOVIND DALL MILL,HOSHANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/JAB/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Govind Rathi, Dy. Cit, Vs. Circle – Itarsi, Prop: Govind Dall Mill

Section 143(3)Section 68

…solve the assessee from discharging the burden of proof on it. Reference in this context, on which aspect of the matter case law is legion, may be made to decisions as Radhey Shyam Tibrewal v. CIT [1984] 145 ITR 186 (SC); Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 244 (SC). I decide accordingly. 8 Govind Rathi v. Dy. CIT 5. The only other issue in this appeal is qua an addition for Rs. 60,000 toward low house-hold withdrawals. The AO effected the same finding the disclosed withdrawal of Rs. 76,000 as inadequate to satisfactorily explain the personal and house-hold expenditure, i.e., for self and family. The…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAMANTA ORGANICS P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…le looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 5.2.4 In yet another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs. CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Hon‟ble Apex Court while considering the scope of immunity u/s. 24 of F. No.(2) Act 1965 held that the immunity provided cannot be invoked in assessment proceedings relevant to any person other than the person making declaration under the Act. In that case, the firm Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal had shown cash credits in the names of 5 sons of Kan…

ITO 8 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHAIRAV STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 148

…looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 6.2.4. In yet another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs. CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the scope of immunity u/s. .24 of F. No.(2) Act 1965 held that the immunity provided cannot be invoked in assessment proceedings relevant to any person other than the person making declaration under the Act. In that case, the firm Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal had -shown cash credits in the names of 5 sons Kanh…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…horities which the assessee had failed to produce. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the ratio of decision of following case laws , as detailed hereunder:- (1) CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 . (2) Sumati Dayal v.CIT 214 ITR 801 (3) Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). (4) Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC) (5) McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC) (6) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); (10) Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177…

KAVIRAJ CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:- “They were entitled to took in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 2.5.5 In yet another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs.CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Hon1ble Apex Court while ITA. No. 1326, 1327/M/2015 A.Y. 2009-10& 2010-11 considering the scope of immunity u/s. 24 of F. No. (2) Act 1965 held that the immunity provided cannot be invoked in assessment proceedings relevant to any person other than the person making declaration under the Act. In that case, the firm Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal…

ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. LEKHRAJ H DOSHI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4502/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NO.4502 & 4503/Mum/2015 Assessment Year-2010-11 & 2011-12 ACIT-19(2), M/s Lekhraj H. Doshi, Room No.207, 24/1, 02nd Carpenter Street, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Pathe Bapurao Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 PAN No.ABPD1010C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Ms. Nimisha Bothra…

KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO -23(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…hile looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 7.7. In yet another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs.CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the scope of immunity u/s. 24 of F.No.(2) Act 1965 held that the immunity provided cannot be invoked in assessment proceedings relevant to any person other than the person making declaration under the Act. In that case, the firm Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal had shown cash credits in the names of 5 sons of Kanh…

Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT