Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT

227 ITR 900High Court1997#2353 most cited

What is Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer has the power under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to inquire into cash credits and add them as income if not genuine. However, before rejecting the assessee's explanation, the AO must conduct proper inquiries regarding the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor, as additions cannot be sustained otherwise.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT · Section 68 Income Tax Act 1961 · cash credit addition · Assessing Officer inquiry duty · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · proper inquiries by AO · onus of proof cash credit · unexplained cash credit · rejection of assessee explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 133ASection 250Section 1961Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofretracted statementaudi alteram partempermanent account numberpaper companyaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionsection 127section 260abeneficial owner

Judgments citing Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT

NEW SURROAD GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, whereas, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 930/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2024 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.924/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18) 1. New Surroad Ginning & 1. The Ito बनाम/ Pressing Factory Ward-2, V/S. At Post Surroad Himatnagar 383 001 Tal: Idar Himatnagar – 383 430 Dist. Sabarkantha 2. The Ito 2. New Surroad Ginning & Ward-1, Himatnagar Pressing Factory Himatnagar – 383 430 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfn 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 234Section 250Section 68

…30/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) & New Surroad Ginning and Pressing Factory vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 partners were assessed with him or should have passed the information to the concerned AO to take remedial action as per law. In Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT 227 ITR 900, it has been held that section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing officer to make enquiry regarding cash credit. If he is satisfied that these entries are not genuine he has every right to add these as income from other sources. But before rejecting the appellant's explanation A.O. must make proper enquiries and in the absence of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HIMATNAGAR, HIMATNAGAR vs. NEW SURROAD GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY, IDAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, whereas, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 924/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2024 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.924/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18) 1. New Surroad Ginning & 1. The Ito बनाम/ Pressing Factory Ward-2, V/S. At Post Surroad Himatnagar 383 001 Tal: Idar Himatnagar – 383 430 Dist. Sabarkantha 2. The Ito 2. New Surroad Ginning & Ward-1, Himatnagar Pressing Factory Himatnagar – 383 430 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfn 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 234Section 250Section 68

…30/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) & New Surroad Ginning and Pressing Factory vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 partners were assessed with him or should have passed the information to the concerned AO to take remedial action as per law. In Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT 227 ITR 900, it has been held that section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing officer to make enquiry regarding cash credit. If he is satisfied that these entries are not genuine he has every right to add these as income from other sources. But before rejecting the appellant's explanation A.O. must make proper enquiries and in the absence of…

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S OM TRILOK REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE , MUMBAI

ITA 4048/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shree Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Deputy Commissioner M/S Om Trilok Realty & Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Infrastructures, Shop No. 6Th Room No. 655, 8, Botawala Building, V Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 82086, Raghavji Road, S M. K. Road, Mumbai- Gowalia Tank, 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai-400036 Pan No. Aabfo8779M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta : Shri R A Dhyani, Cit-Dr Respondent By : 17.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 10.12.2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: 17.09.2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…satisfaction of AO thereafter is subjective and requires more efforts/inquiry on the part of the AO to give a finding in the order that lender is not credit worthy. The AO must make proper enquiry before making any addition. In Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gau.), it has been held that the Assessing officer is empowered to make enquiry. If he is satisfied that these entries are not genuine he has every right to add these as income from other sources. But before rejecting the assessee's explanation, A.O. must make proper enquiries and in the absence of proper enquiries, addition cannot be sustained.…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ture, the Department cannot act unreasonably and reject the explanation to hold that it was income. The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof”. d) In the case of ‘Khandelwal Construction Vs CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gauhati)’, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court had held as under: “the amount of cash credits could not be included in the total income of the assessee because the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiry. Therefore, u/s 68, the onus is on the assessee to offer explanation where any sum is found credited in the books of account. This is n…

RITIKA GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4495/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritika Gems Pvt Ltd Vs ITO – 5(3)(1) 4/DNavratna, Ld.DR. Room No. 526, Aayakar DD Sahe Marg, Opera Bhavan, MK Road, House, Mumbai Mumbai – 400020. PAN – AAECR3817M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jigar Mehta Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI vs. URBAINIA SPACES PVT. LTD., MANDAWALI, DELHI

ITA 2012/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 13, Flat No.19, Ground Floor, Prop. No. Delhi. 01, Pardhan Complex, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aabcu6277D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…yal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 Taxman 89 (SC) ii. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Limited V CIT(2003) 263 ITR 289(Cal HC) ii. iii. Tola Ram Daga V CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) iv. Dhansi Ram Agarwala V CIT (1966) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) v. Khandelwal Constructions V CIT 227 ITR 900(Gau) 5.3.1 I have considered the facts of case and the submissions filed by the appellant. The assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan from Sagarika Sea Craft Ltd. The appellant had filed confirmed copy of A/c of this party and had also informed the AO about the change of name of the company. The total…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1536/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…ture, the Department cannot act unreasonably and reject the explanation to hold that it was income. The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof”. d) In the case of ‘Khandelwal Construction Vs CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gauhati)’, the Honble jurisdictional High Court had held as under: “the amount of cash credits could not be included in the total income of the assessee because the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiry. Therefore, u/s 68, the onus is on the assessee to offer explanation where any sum is found credited in the books of account. This is no…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1535/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

…ture, the Department cannot act unreasonably and reject the explanation to hold that it was income. The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof”. d) In the case of ‘Khandelwal Construction Vs CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gauhati)’, the Honble jurisdictional High Court had held as under: “the amount of cash credits could not be included in the total income of the assessee because the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiry. Therefore, u/s 68, the onus is on the assessee to offer explanation where any sum is found credited in the books of account. This is no…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…nference on facts is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is the basis for invocation of the powers u/s 68, such satisfaction must be derived from relevant factors on the basis of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer and such inquiry must be reasonable and just. 7.29 According to Section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961, where any sum is found cred…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…nference on facts is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is the basis for invocation of the powers u/s 68, such satisfaction must be derived from relevant factors on the basis of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer and such inquiry must be reasonable and just. 7.29 According to Section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961, where any sum is found cred…

SUDESH KUMAR SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 2012/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 13, Flat No.19, Ground Floor, Prop. No. Delhi. 01, Pardhan Complex, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aabcu6277D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…yal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 Taxman 89 (SC) ii. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Limited V CIT(2003) 263 ITR 289(Cal HC) ii. iii. Tola Ram Daga V CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) iv. Dhansi Ram Agarwala V CIT (1966) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) v. Khandelwal Constructions V CIT 227 ITR 900(Gau) 5.3.1 I have considered the facts of case and the submissions filed by the appellant. The assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan from Sagarika Sea Craft Ltd. The appellant had filed confirmed copy of A/c of this party and had also informed the AO about the change of name of the company. The total…

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…with the\nburden which is on the appellant to establish the requisites of the cash credit. It is\nfact that the postal address and the identity are not provided by the appellant which\ncould be substantiated the sales.\n8.2 In Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) it has been held by the\nHon'ble Guwahati High Court that Section 68 of Act, empowers the Assessing\nofficer to make enquiry regarding cash credit and If satisfied that these entries are\nnot genuine, Assessing Officer has every right to add these as income from other\nsources. But before rejecting the assessee's explanation Assessing Offi…

INDRAVADAN HANJARIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6281/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6279, 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 ) Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain Vs. Dy. CIT, Circ-42(2)(1) 701, Anmol Prestige, Near Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Patel Petrol Pump, Goregoan Bandra East 400104. PAN/GIR No. AAAPJ9737B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ridhisha Jain a/w Shri Karan Jain Revenue by Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: Thes…

INDRAVADAN HANJARIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6280/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6279, 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 ) Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain Vs. Dy. CIT, Circ-42(2)(1) 701, Anmol Prestige, Near Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Patel Petrol Pump, Goregoan Bandra East 400104. PAN/GIR No. AAAPJ9737B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ridhisha Jain a/w Shri Karan Jain Revenue by Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: Thes…

INDRAVADAN HANJARIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6279, 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 ) Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain Vs. Dy. CIT, Circ-42(2)(1) 701, Anmol Prestige, Near Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Patel Petrol Pump, Goregoan Bandra East 400104. PAN/GIR No. AAAPJ9737B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ridhisha Jain a/w Shri Karan Jain Revenue by Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: Thes…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

…fact is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the Revenue. Proper enquiry must be made by AO before making any addition u/s 68: The AO must make proper enquiry before making any addition u/s 68 In Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) it has been held that section" 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the assessing officer to make enquiry regarding cash credit. If he is satisfied that these entries are not genuine he has every right to add these as income from other sources. But before rejecting the assessee's explanation AO must make proper enquiries and in the absence…

SPARROWS HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-11(2)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 272/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Sparrows Home Ito- Ward 11(2)-3 Appliances Private Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Limited 803, 8Th Floor, New Marine Lines, Jay Antriksh, Vs. Churchgate, Makhwana Road, Mumbai- 400020. Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400059. Pan: Aaocs5028F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sparrows Home ITO- Ward 11(2)-3 Appliances Private Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Limited 803, 8th Floor, New Marine Lines, Jay Antriksh, Vs. Churchgate, Makhwana Road, Mumbai- 400020. Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400059. PAN: AAOCS5028F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for : Assessee by : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A.R. Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R. Date of Hearing : 25 . 06 . 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26 . 07 . 2…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

…lanation is probable, the onus will shift to the :-18-: ITA. No: 1106/Chny/2023 Revenue. Proper enquiry must be made by AO before making any addition u/s 68: The AO must make proper enquiry before making any addition u/s 68. In Khandelwal Constructions,. CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) it has been held that section 68 of Income Tax, Act, 1961 empowers the assessing officer to make enquiry regarding cash credit. If he is satisfied that these entries are not genuine he has every right to add these as income from other sources. But before rejecting the assessee's explanation AO must make proper enquiries and In the absence…

ITO, WARD- 22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SAIVI FINANCE PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the AO is the basis for invocation of the powers u/S 68, such satisfaction must be derived from relevant factors on the basis of proper Inquiry by the AO and such Inquiry must be reasonable and Just. It is also settled law that it is mandatory for the AO to confront the assessee with any material collected by…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…t the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary ruling are as under:-  Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.)  CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC)  CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). h. It is also settled law that it is mandatory for the AO to confront the assessee with any material collected by the AO at the back of the assessee, and in case of statement of third party recorded at the back of the assessee, opportunity of…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3