Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

30 SOT 44Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#24363 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

Neelesh Choudhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 68

…ar: 2014-15 Neelesh Choudhury and his detailed evidences comprising of bank statements, confirmation of brokerage and ledger accounts prove that he had indeed paid and received the impugned sum in lieu of commodity transactions only. This tribunal’s in (2009) 30 SOT 44 Acchyalal Shaw v/s. ITO & (2006) 6 SOT 247 Mukesh R Marolia v/s. Addl. CIT, hold that the necessary inference in such a backdrop that it is aninstance of off market transactions only. We thus hold fact that both the lower authorities’ have erred in adding/treating assessee’s speculation income as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. The ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri S.K. Sethi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is jettisoned

ITA 1440/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri L.N. Malik, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Bernwal Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…the following cases. a) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT 26 ITR 736 b) Omar Salay Mohammed Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151 c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT 26 ITR 775 d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 37 ITR 288 15.7 In the case of Acchyalal Shaw v. ITO (2009) 30 SOT 44 (Kol.) (URO), the Hon’ble ITAT observed as under: “Suspicion cannot replace evidential document. Simple argument or allegation of manipulation is not sufficient without proper evidence.” 15.8 I am in full agreement with the contentions of the AR. In the light of the various decisions cited, there is no case for addition of Rs. 1,50,93,870/-. Acco…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vip Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5153/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2003-04 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Vip Gorwth Fund Pvt. Ltd. Circle 17(1), New Delhi 208, 4855/24, Ansar Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan:Aaacv2851M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.C. Roy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…t in the following cases. a) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT 26 ITR 775 b) Omar Salay Mohammed Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151 c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT 26 ITR 775 d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 37 ITR 288 17. In the case of Acchyalal Shaw v. ITO (2009) 30 SOT 44 (Kol.) (URO), the Hon'ble ITAT observed as under: 11 "Suspicion cannot replace evidential document. Simple argument or allegation of manipulation is not sufficient without proper evidence." 18. In view of the above facts and circumstances and available legal position, the share application money/share capital to the extent of Rs. 40,00,000/- stan…