Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. ACIT

3 SOT 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#17584 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2021.

Judgments citing Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. ACIT

DCIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4169/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-13(3)(2), M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Jaimala Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Hotel Shimmers, Link Road, Mumbai-400020. Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaecv 0129 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

…by the assessee, the department is at liberty to proceed against such creditor wherever required. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Ranjana Katyal VS ACIT (2008) 1 DTR (Del) (Trib) 24 and Pankaj Sawhney Vs ITO (2004) 3 SOT 1 (Del) 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) held as follows: "13. In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were incometaxassessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue.…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…ee had satisfactorily, explained the cash credit ofRs.17000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the AAC was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,000/-. That ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Pankaj Sawhney vs. Income Tax Officer (2004) 3 SOT 1 (Del) held that assessee having furnished considerable material in support of identity of donors and having established all of them to be income tax assessee, addition was liable to be deleted. That ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of ITO vs Parveen Kumar (2004) 2 SOT 77 (Asr) held that the identity of the creditor was disclosed and also source of t…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…ee had satisfactorily, explained the cash credit ofRs.17000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the AAC was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,000/-. That ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Pankaj Sawhney vs. Income Tax Officer (2004) 3 SOT 1 (Del) held that assessee having furnished considerable material in support of identity of donors and having established all of them to be income tax assessee, addition was liable to be deleted. That ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of ITO vs Parveen Kumar (2004) 2 SOT 77 (Asr) held that the identity of the creditor was disclosed and also source of t…

Shri Prem Chand Tapen G-183, Neha Plastic Industries, G-183, Riico Industrial Area, Bagru, Jaipur Jajas Than, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur, Ward-7(2)

ITA 620/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. R. N. Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 69

…itors are shown by the assessee, the department is at liberty to proceed against such creditor wherever required. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Ranjana Katyal Vs ACIT (2008) 1 DTR (Del)(Trib) 24 and Pankaj Sawhney Vs ITO (2004) 3 SOT 1 (Del). In this case, the identity and the address was shown by the appellant. 11. It was further submitted that it is presumed, subject to rebuttal, that transaction cannot be considered as bogus when the funds are routed through bank accounts as they cannot be considered as unaccounted monies being the purpose for which the provision was introduced…

ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur, Ward-7(2) vs. Shri Prem Chand Tepan S/O Goma Ram Khatik, Prop. M/S. Neha Plastic Industries, Riico Indu. Area, 183, Mahala Bagru, Jaipur

ITA 619/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. R. N. Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 69

…itors are shown by the assessee, the department is at liberty to proceed against such creditor wherever required. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Ranjana Katyal Vs ACIT (2008) 1 DTR (Del)(Trib) 24 and Pankaj Sawhney Vs ITO (2004) 3 SOT 1 (Del). In this case, the identity and the address was shown by the appellant. 11. It was further submitted that it is presumed, subject to rebuttal, that transaction cannot be considered as bogus when the funds are routed through bank accounts as they cannot be considered as unaccounted monies being the purpose for which the provision was introduced…

Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. ACIT (3 SOT 1) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax