Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO

219 CTR 571High Court2008#2627 most cited

What is Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO authority for?

When an assessee establishes the identity of creditors who have confirmed credits advanced by account payee cheques, the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits is discharged. The assessee is not required to establish the 'source of the source,' meaning the capacity of the lender to advance money, nor can an addition be sustained solely because a creditor fails to respond to a Section 133(6) notice.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Labh Chand Bohra v ITO · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · identity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · Section 133(6) notice · discharge of initial onus · addition not sustained

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 250Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceretraction of statementpaper companycreditworthiness of the creditoraddition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionshare application moneyentry operatoraddition under section 68section 131unexplained cash creditreasoned order

Judgments citing Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…he lenders, no addition u/s 68 of the act can be made and for this preposition the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon a series of decisions namely Murulidhar Lahorimal vs M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in…

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…he lenders, no addition u/s 68 of the act can be made and for this preposition the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon a series of decisions namely Murulidhar Lahorimal vs M/s. Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors CIT (280 ITR 512)(Guj),Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO reported in 219 CTR 571 (Raj), CIT vs Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 298 (Del), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT reported in 103 ITR 344 (Pat),DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360,Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO reported in 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gau).In para 39.28 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in…

Ashok Kumar Banthia, Bikaner vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bikaner

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavashok Kumar Banthia, Vs. D.C.I.T., Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Central Circle, Gangashahar, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aixpb 4919 N Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Adv. & Shri Sudarshan Jhabak, Ca. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 07/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Order Passed By The Assessing Authority & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal & Against The Law. 2. That The Order Is Illegal In View Of The Fact That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) As Well As The Assessing Authority Fails To Cross Examine The Deponent Of The Affidavits Submitted Before The Assessing Officer. In View Of Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Delivered In The Case Of M/S Mehta Parekha & Co., The Contents Of The Affidavit Should Have Been Accepted. 3. That The Assessment Completed In The Hands Of The Assessee Is Not Justified Because The Amount Belongs To M/S Lux Industries Limited As Admitted By The Director Of The Company. Therefore, The Assessment Is Illegal.

For Appellant: “1. That the
Section 132Section 143(3)

…position, we found support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Ra…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…an be asked to prove the source of credit in books, but cannot be asked to prove the source of the source has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs…

DCIT, Bhiwani vs. Sh. Amit Kumar Garg, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection by the assessed partly allowed

ITA 2448/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2448/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Amit Kumar Garg, Huda City Centre, Prop. M/S Amit Sales Corporation, Bhiwani Plot No. 2, Near Over Bridge, Circular Road, Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adcpg3789K

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…following judgments:  Addl. CIT vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Pat)  Mather & Platt (India) Ltd vs CIT 168 ITR 493 (Cal)  Addl. CIT Bihar vs Bahri Bros P. Ltd. 154 ITR 244 (Pat)  Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 136 Taxman 213 (Gau)  Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) 12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the decision of the ld. CIT (A), that no separate addition on account of unsecured loans is warranted as the income of the assessee has been estimated for the year is found to be on incorrect interpretation of the ratio laid down by the H…

Sh. Barat Pal Sood, Phagwara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Phagwara

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

ITA 11/ASR/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 143(3)

…bout the source of funds in the bank account of the depositor, there was no reason to even presume that this belonged to the assessee under appeal. This decision has been followed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO reported at 219 CTR 571 wherein it has been held that identity of the creditor having been established and that they confirmed the credits satisfies the requirement of discharge of burden on the part of the assessee to prove genuineness of the transaction. Capacity of the lender to advance money to the assessee was not a matter which the assessee could be required to es…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…f the appeal of the revenue for all three AY’s. in support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decisions of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd (330 ITR 298 Delhi), Rajasthan High Court in Labh Chand Bhora Vs ITO (219 CTR 571), Bombay High Court in Veeddhata Tower Pvt Ltd (403 ITR 415 Bom), Gujarat High Court in Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs CIT (280 ITR 512) Devine, Bombay High Court in NuPower Renewables (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (104 taxmann.com 307), PCIT Vs Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd (105 taxmann.com 206), Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Vertas (India) Ltd (ITA No. 3276/Mum/2016)…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Mahesh Mordia, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 545/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…e capacity to provide loan to any person at least to the extent of Rs. 2.08 crore. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaiala Jangid Vs ACIY (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) and Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj). As per the ld AR, it was not a case of the A.O. that the loan creditor has deposited cash in his bank account before issuing of cheque. There was credit in his bank account through transfer entries and only through banking transaction. The bank statement was also procured by the A.O. 8 ITO Vs Mahesh Mordia directly from the bank wherein n…

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21((3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1637/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…statements , ITRs and finanacial statements of the lenders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All) viii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The learned A.R. submitted that since the as…

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21((3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1634/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…statements , ITRs and finanacial statements of the lenders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All) viii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The learned A.R. submitted that since the as…

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18((1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1633/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…statements , ITRs and finanacial statements of the lenders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All) viii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The learned A.R. submitted that since the as…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133ASection 68

…ans amounting to Rs.1,15,00,000/-. 6.2 The assessee company has also relied on the following decisions in support of its claim (i) Gujarat High Court in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal(280 ITR 512) (ii) Rajas than High Court in the case of Labh chand Bohra (219 CTR 571) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (iv) Delhi High Court in the case of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268) (v) Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195) (vi) Bombay High Court in the case of Creative World Telefilm Ltd. (333 ITR 100 (vii) Allahabad High Court in…

Sri. H.C. Mahadevaiah, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1845/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 234Section 40

…the objections of the AO if any in respect of their statements. Reliance was placed by him on the following judicial pronouncements along with the submission that all the loans were received by way of account payee cheques. A) Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO ([2008] 219 CTR 571) (Rajasthan) B) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal ([2014] 366 ITR 217) (Rajasthan) C) CIT Vs. DeenDayal Choudhary ([2017] 293 CTR 468) (Rajasthan) D) ACIT Vs. Shri Abhishek Agarwal in ITA No. 835/LKW/2014 He submitted copy of all these judgements. As against this, ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 5. Thereafter the learned. A…

Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in I

ITA 858/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…r issue are as under :- -: 19 :- Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. - ._ S.No Reference Citation Relevant Para CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance 1 354 ITR 296 (Del) Para 7 Ltd 2 Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Para 20 Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) Para 8 3 Para 5 & 6 4 CIT vs. Glocom Impex P Ltd 299 ITR 571 (Del) 5 CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment 330 ITR 298 (Del) Para 12 6 CIT vs People General Hospital Ltd 356 ITR 65 [MP] 7 CIT v.Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. 333 ITR 119 (Del) 8 Pr. CIT vs. Mahakaushal Sugar & 30 ITJ 316 (MP) 9. After considering the submissions of the parties and th…

Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in I

ITA 857/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…r issue are as under :- -: 19 :- Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. - ._ S.No Reference Citation Relevant Para CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance 1 354 ITR 296 (Del) Para 7 Ltd 2 Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Para 20 Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) Para 8 3 Para 5 & 6 4 CIT vs. Glocom Impex P Ltd 299 ITR 571 (Del) 5 CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment 330 ITR 298 (Del) Para 12 6 CIT vs People General Hospital Ltd 356 ITR 65 [MP] 7 CIT v.Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. 333 ITR 119 (Del) 8 Pr. CIT vs. Mahakaushal Sugar & 30 ITJ 316 (MP) 9. After considering the submissions of the parties and th…

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3067/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…credit if transactions are genuine and identity of depositors is established then amount representing cash credits could not be added to income of assessee.’’ Further Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.), has held that "If the ITA Nos.3066 & 3067/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 13 of 14 explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidence, then the deeming fiction created by s. 68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as this requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanc…

Savitaben Mangaldas Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3066/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…credit if transactions are genuine and identity of depositors is established then amount representing cash credits could not be added to income of assessee.’’ Further Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.), has held that "If the ITA Nos.3066 & 3067/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 13 of 14 explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidence, then the deeming fiction created by s. 68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as this requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanc…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhiwadi vs. Shri Satish Kumar, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 637/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80C

…s. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) (HC) 3. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC) 4. CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) (HC) 5. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) 6. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) (HC) 7. Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) (HC) In view of above, the addition made by the AO is rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the ground of the department be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the mate…

Devendra Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 436/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, JCIT- DR
Section 69

…e of funds and not the source of the source, therefore it is not the burden of the assessee to explain the source of funds of the purchasers paying advance for purchase of the land. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO 219 CTR 571 held that so far as capacity of the lender is concerned, in our view on the face of the judgment of the Hon’ble 19 Shri Devendra Kumar Meena vs ITO, Ward- 6(3),Jaipur Ssupreme Court in Daulat Ram’s case and other judgments , capacity of the lender to advance money to the assessee was not a matter which could be required of the assessee to be es…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

…011 AY 1996-97 dated 11.5.2013 in the case of DCIT vs. Rainee Singh following judgments. 5 i) 264 ITR 254 Page. 261 to 266 (Gau.) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT ii) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO e) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders f) 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO g) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT h) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.). Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Aggarwal i) 154 ITR 244 (Pat.) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. j) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Tolaram Daga vs. CIT k) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 6.1 As regards addition of Rs. 5,49,000/-…