Jaya Aggarwal v. ITO

92 Taxmann.com 108High Court2018#2830 most cited

What is Jaya Aggarwal v. ITO authority for?

The mere existence of a time gap between cash withdrawals and their subsequent redeposit does not invalidate the assessee's explanation, especially in the absence of contrary evidence. The authorities must give due latitude to human conduct when assessing the truthfulness of an explanation.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jaya Aggarwal v. ITO · cash withdrawal · cash deposit · time gap · unexplained money · onus of proof · human conduct · credibility of explanation · section 69A · section 68

Also reported as

254 Taxmann 398302 CTR 24170 DTR 132

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271AAASection 69ASection 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80iabsection 80ia(4)(i)section 8osection 153(1)(a)section 271aaasection 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitypreponderance of probabilitydeduction under section 80iadeduction u/s 80iasection 153(1)

Judgments citing Jaya Aggarwal v. ITO

Sanjeev Batra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3093/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08 Sanjeev Batra, Vs. Dcit, Circle 52(1), 10-D, Sagar Apartments New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi – 110001 (Pan: Aafpb9937Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Santosh Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 SANJEEV BATRA, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), 10-D, SAGAR APARTMENTS NEW DELHI 6, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI – 110001 (PAN: AAFPB9937Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Santosh Pathak, CA Revenue by : Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 22.3.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- i) Action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 9,86,000/- into t…

Waman Hari Pethe Jewllers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3)

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5682/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5682, 5681 & 5683/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri. Abhay V. KamatFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh,CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5682, 5681 & 5683/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) Waman Hari Pethe Jewellers बिाम/ ACIT 16(3) Pethe Building, J.S.S Road, Mumbai Girgaum, Mumbai-400004. v. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAAFW0236C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Abhay V. Kamat Revenue by : Shri H.N Singh,CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 19.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख…