Labhchand Bohra v. ITO

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…and the payment was really madeby it, which stands established in the present case, as would appear from the above documents enclosed. Thus identity of all these persons stood established beyond doubt. Kindly refer a decision in Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)-Held: cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and they confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of assessee to prove genuneness. However capacity of the lender to advancement money to assessee was not a matter which the assessee could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to est…

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…have visualized anything wrong to disturb his conclusion. 3.2 Following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court which are directly relevant for the purpose. 10 SMT. GAYATRI DEVI VS PR.CIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR 3.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) (DPB 1-4) held that: “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to cal…

Jagat Singh Rathore, Tonk vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…ong in as much as the AO cannot ask the assessee to be the source of source and the law is well settled on that aspect. Followingdecisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. 4.1.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) (DPB ?) held that “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to callin…

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…record, the AO also was not supposed nor he could have visualized anything wrong to disturb his conclusion. 3.2 Following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court which are directly relevant for the purpose. 3.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) (DPB 1-4) held that: “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to cal…

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…to the assesse but the AO is not legally bound to examine source of source, once the immediate source is available. 3.3Following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. 3.3.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)held that “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon hi…

Shri Madan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

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

…tions and the affidavits and wanted to go deeper in the aspect of the source of source. Whereas, the law is trite that the AO cannot ask the source of source. 2.2 Supporting Case Laws: 8 Shri Madan Lal Meena 2.2.1Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)(DPB 1-6)held that “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to callin…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…tworthiness of the shareholder. 3.2 Following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur 3.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) (DPB 1-4) held that “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to call…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

…assessee to provide source of source under the pretense of examination of the creditworthiness of the shareholder. 3.2 Following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. 3.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) (DPB 1-4) held that “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to call…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…tworthiness of the shareholder. 3.2 Following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur 3.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) (DPB 1-4) held that “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amount to call…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

…verified source of sources.) 24 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur 4.2 Following decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. 4.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) dated 28.04.2008 (DPB) held that "Cash credit-burden of proof-identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amo…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

…verified source of sources.) 24 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur 4.2 Following decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. 4.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) dated 28.04.2008 (DPB) held that "Cash credit-burden of proof-identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be required to establish and that would amo…

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

…assessee to provide source of source under the pretense of examination of the creditworthiness of the shareholder. 3.2 Following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are directly relevant for the purpose. 3.2.1 Kindly refer Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) (DPB 1-4) held that “Cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and the confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of appellant to 14 ITA 09/JP/2021_ Annu Agrotech P Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT prove genuineness. However, capacity of the lender to advancement money to appellant was not a matter which the appellant could be…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

…elied on the following case laws: i. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) ii. R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), iii. Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). 13 ITA 173/JP/2019 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO iv. Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) v. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (RAJ.), (217 CTR 354) vi. Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO 8 DTR 199 vii. CIT V/S Abdul Aziz 72 DTR 216(Chhattisgarh) viii. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. ARL Infratech, Ltd., (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 24/2014) decided on 28.09.2016 (Raj.) ix. Muralidhar Lahoriaml v/s CIT 280 ITR 512(Guj.) Wit…

M/S Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ’B’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 566 & 567/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08 cuke M/s Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd., The ITO, Vs. B-2, Jaipur Tower, Ward-4(3), MI Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACB 7551 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reve…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

…The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). Kindly refer a very recent decision in Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)- Held: cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and they confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of assessee to prove genuineness. However capacity of the lender to advancement money to assessee was not a matter which the assessee could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to e…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with

…ion alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). 18.1 Kindly refer decision in Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)- Held: cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and they confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of assessee to prove genuineness. However capacity of the lender to advancement money to assessee was not a matter which the assessee could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to e…