Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

37 ITR 288Supreme Court of India1959#110 most cited

What is Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT authority for?

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

570

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT · unexplained cash deposit · cash credit section 68 · unexplained money section 69A · rejection of books of account section 145(3) · acceptance of books · sufficiency of cash balance · assessment addition · cash book balance · mercantile system of accounting

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 147Section 132Section 143(2)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)dumb documentsrejection of books of accountsection 69bsection 292csection 145(3)section 34loose paperson-moneysection 10(38)penny stockaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, 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)

…rom certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Agson Global Pvt Ltd reported in 441 ITR 550 (Del) and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). 10. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by considering certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (Supra), opined that the assessee could able to explain source of cash :-11-: ITA. No: 1106/Chny/2023 deposits into…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…quoted in support – a) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros 37 ITR 271 b) CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 ( P&H) 36 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni c) CIT Vs Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 d) Lal chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 e) State Vs Guljari lal Tondan AIR 1979 (SC) f) J A Naidoo Vs State of Maharastra AIR 1979 SC 1537 g) Krishnand Vs State of MP AIR 1977 SC 796 h) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 SC 40 I) Omar Saha 37 ITR 151 (SC) Assessment has been completed and additions have been made on the following ground “It is clearly evident from the above that…

Natasha Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

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

ITA 1792/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatr Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)Section 69

…liance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that no addition can b made on surmises and conjectures: 14 SUPREME COURT in the case of LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA, [1959] 37 ITR 288 "It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the re…

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT – Central Circle – 2(2) v. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old CGO Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 PAN: AZBPS0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik Date of conclusion of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal…

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

…953) 23 ITR 353 (Orisssa) 4. CIT Vs. Kameshwar Singh (1933) 1 1TR 94 (PC) 5. Dhirajlal Giridharilal Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 6. Pioneer Himudyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.338/Kol/2017 order dated 23.08.2017) 7. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Appellant further submits that it had also incurred similar expenditure in some of the other years, AO has accepted the genuineness of such payments for AY: 2012-13 and AY: 2014-15. Assessee has been regularly paying consultancy charges to outside doctors who are specialized in different medical fields. However, no such disallowance has been…

The DCIT Circle 5(1), Bhopal vs. M/S L N Malviya Infra Projects P Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 189/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 234ASection 3(3)Section 37(1)

…ious year. We hold that addition is liable to be deleted. n) Reliance is also placed on following judgments wherein it was held that adhoc additions are not permissible. a. JJ Entreprises vs CIT(2002) 254 ITR 216 (SC) b. LalchandBhapatAmbica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288(SC) c. CIT vs Shehnaz Hussain (2004) 267 ITR 572 (Del) d. Vichitra Constructions (P) Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA N_{0} 5047/Del/2015, dated 27.05.2019 (Hon'ble Delhi ITAT) 7.9 In view of the above facts and discussion and respectfully following the judgments outlined above the ad-hoc disallowance made by the AO out of Travelling expenses is held to be made…

The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Sahana Jewellery Exports Privae Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 999/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.999/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Sahana Jewellery- Corporate Ward-2, Exports Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore. 600, Raja Street, Coimbatore-641 001. [Pan:Aaecs 7045 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 133(6)

…recedents including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Agson Global (P) Ltd reported in 441 ITR 550 (Del) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). 6. The Ld.CIT (A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by considering the ratios of various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT(Supra) opined that the assessee is able to explain source for cash deposits during the demonetizatio…

Kanchan India Limited, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 522/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Kanchan India Limited DCIT, 20 Textile Market, Bhilwara. Vs. Central Circle, Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCK 0452 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA/405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…i) It is a cardinal principle of a statute concerning tax that the law to be applied is the one which is in force in the AY in issue unless provided otherwise, either expressly or by necessary implication. [See Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC)] (ii) The law enacted by Parliament must have regard to the language used in the provision and construed in the background of the scheme and the object of both the statute and the provision in issue. Therefore, if Parliament chooses to confer a benefit through an amendment, it does not necessarily imply that it should be given retrospe…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA-405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…i) It is a cardinal principle of a statute concerning tax that the law to be applied is the one which is in force in the AY in issue unless provided otherwise, either expressly or by necessary implication. [See Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC)] (ii) The law enacted by Parliament must have regard to the language used in the provision and construed in the background of the scheme and the object of both the statute and the provision in issue. Therefore, if Parliament chooses to confer a benefit through an amendment, it does not necessarily imply that it should be given retrospe…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gotam Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehra, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…arshila Chordia vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj. HC) (ii) ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers & Anr (2021) 212 TTJ 117 (ITAT Vishakhapatnam) (iii) R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bombay HC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The ld. A/R placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Jaipur Tribunal in the case of ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal in ITA No. 172/JP/2022 wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Jaipur Tribunal observed at pages 54-56 of its order as under :- “Looking to the above facts and circumstances of t…

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 59/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 58/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 57/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1824/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1823/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1822/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT- CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1821/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1820/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1819/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…ney, the additions made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed…