How many judgments cite Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT?

65 judgments on BharatTax cite Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT (280 ITR 512), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147.

Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT

280 ITR 512High Court2006#1745 most cited

What is Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT authority for?

Where a loan is repaid and the repayment is accepted by the tax department, no addition for such loan can be made in the hands of the assessee as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Murlidhar Lahorimal · 280 ITR 512 · Section 68 Income-tax Act 1961 · cash credit addition · unexplained loan · loan repayment accepted · no addition for repaid loan · Gujarat High Court · assessee's hands · source of credit · repayment of loan

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 115BBE Section 131

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

permanent account number eligible assessee summons under section 131 statement under section 132(4)source of source addition under section 68 eligible business section 44a section 44ad share application money section 133 disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…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.) With regard to reopening of the case, the ld. AR has submitted that the reasons recorded itself was wrong, incorrect and without material on record at the time of recording of reasons. Because in the reasons recorded the ld. AO mentioned that “as per information during the F.Y. 2013-14 the assessee has deposited the cash amount of Rs.26,00,…

I.T.O. - 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Leena Haresh Harde, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6429/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(2)(5) V. Smt Leena Haresh Harde Room No. 506, C-10, 5Th Floor 502, 5Th Floor, Padmawati Palace Pratyakshakar Bhavan Nanda Patkar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaxph1737Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Michael Jerald

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 68

…f source of funds obtained. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - (a) S. Hastimal v. CIT [49 ITR 273(Mad HC)] (b) Tolaram Daga v. CIT [59 ITR 632 (Gauhati HC)] (c) Nemichand Kothari v. CIT [264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC)] (d) Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT [280 ITR 512 (Guj HC)] 10 Smt Leena Haresh Harde 12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no cogent material or evidence has been brought on record to indicate that the assessee's own unaccounted money has been received back under the garb of unsecured loans. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…. 13. Asstt. CIT v. SarvPrakashKapoor[2009] 119 ITD 197 (Agra) (TM). 14. CIT v. Ms. Mayawati [2011] 12 taxmann.com 306/201 taxman 1 (Delhi) 15. Gyan Chand Gupta v. CIT[2011] 16 taxmann.com 240/[2012] 49 SOT 13 (UROl (Jp.). 16. MurlidharLahorimal v. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) 17. Nek Kumar v. Asst. CIT (2005) 274 ITR 575 (Jaipur). 18. CIT Poona v. Bhai Chand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.)” 5. Matter was remanded to the assessing officer vide this office letter dated 08.05.2013. In response, the Assessing Officer sent remand report vide his letter dated 04.06.2013 as under: In his submissions made before you…

Income Tax Officer 15(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Celebrity Lifespace Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6301/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15)

For Appellant: SinghFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…e of the evidence filed by the assessee company like, income tax details, PAN, bank account, mode of payment (by account payee cheques), loan confirmation, etc unless provided otherwise. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT 280 ITR 512 has held that 'an assessee can be asked to prove the source of credit in the books, ITA No. 6301//Mum/2017. M/s. Celebrity Lifespace Pvdst Ltd., Mumbai. but he cannot be asked to prove the source of the source". Under the circumstances and facts of the case, the AO has not placed any evidence on record to support its claim that the transaction…

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 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) M/s Arshiya International Ltd. 10. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of au…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…) TolaRam Daga v cIT viii. 49 ITR 273 at 279 (Mad) S. Hastimal v CIT ix. 151 ITR 150 at 156-157 (Pat) Addl. CIT, Bihar v Hanuman Aggarwal x. 154 ITR 244 at 247 (Pat) Addl CIT v Bahri Bros. (P) Lt xi. 264 ITR 254 at 261-266 (Gau) Nemichand Kothari v. CIT xii. 280 ITR 512 at 518 (Guj) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT xiii. [2008] 219 CTR (Raj.) 571 at 577 Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO xiv. 256 ITR 360 at 369 (Guj) DCIT Vs Rohini Builders It is necessary to state that these loans are interest bearing loan and AO has also noticed that part of the same has been returned and interest has been credited and confirmation of the sa…

Smt. Shital R. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3136/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt. Shital R Shah Ito बनाम/ B/508, Krishna Tower, Ward- 7(2)(5), Vs. Opp. Priya Cinema, Nature View Building, Saijpur Bogha, Ahmedabad Krishnangar, Ahmedabad- 382345 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bek Ps2 377 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234CSection 68

…sons to provide loans to the assessee. • S. 68 does not require an assessee to prove source of the source of deposits. Hence, no addition is called for u/s. 68. Reliance is placed on: " DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) " Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Pragati Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • Having furnished the aforesaid details, the concerned credits, by no stretch of imagination, remain unexplained any further in the assessee’s hands. • AO and CIT(A) have, rather than commenting on the documentary evidences furnis…

Shri Sunil M. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-7, Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 936/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 936/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 ) Shri Sunil M. Shah The Acit बनाम/ A-1, Krishna Darshan Duplex Circle-7 Vs. Manjalpur, Baroda Baroda "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajmps 8864 R .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shri Anil R. Shah & Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shri Anil R. Shah and Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 68

…without verifying the necessary details filed by the assessee, there cannot be any addition u/s 68 of the Act. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT reported in 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) wherein it was held as under: “11. As section 68 of the Act denotes, once there is a credit in the books maintained by the assessee, the primary onus is on the assessee, namely, to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit. What would be the degree of the onus and what should be the extent of explanation in such circum…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…as unexplained cash credits. This contention is supported by the following decisions :- • CIT Vs. Daulatram Ravatmal 87 ITR 349 (S.C) ITA No.1991/Ahd/2016 and 715/Ahd/2017 21 • Dhirajlal Girdharlal Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) • Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj) • CIT Vs. Pragati Co-operative Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 [Guj) (c) Even 'source of the source' has been explained: It is settled law that addition u/s. 68 of the Act cannot be made if source of source is not explained. Law is very clear that assessee is not required to prove the 'source of source' of cash credits. This proposition is well suppo…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

M/S. South Shourne Corporation (India), Baroda vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-2(2), Baroda

ITA 269/AHD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.269/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 M/S South Shourne Corporation(India) Acit, 931, Gidc Estate, Circle-2(2), V Makarpura, Baroda. S. Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.DR

Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 68

…ssessee to prove the source of the source of deposits. Hence no addition is called for u/s.68 of the Act. The Ld.AR also placed reliance upon the judgment as follows: DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR360(Guj) Asstt. Year 2004-05 7 Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) CIT Vs. Pragati Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) 7.10 Having furnished the aforesaid details, the concerned credits, by no stretch of imagination, remain unexplained any further in the assessee’s hands. In the light of the above, Ld.CIT (A) ought to have deleted the impugned addition. 8. On the other hand Ld.DR submitted that assesse…

Shri Jyotindra Bachubhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-7, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1770/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1770/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Jyotindra Bachubhai Patel, Dcit, बनाम/ B-4, Nitarang Society, Circle – 4(1), Vs. New Sama Road, G.E.B. Building, Vadodara – 08 Vadodara. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acqpp 8663 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri P. B. Parmar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G. C. Daxini, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Daxini, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…doesn't require an assessee to prove source of the source of deposits. Hence, no addition is called for u/s 68. Reliance is placed on: Jyotindra Bachubhai Patel vs. DCIT A.Y. 2009-10 " DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) " Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Pragati Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Having furnished aforesaid details, the concerned credits, by no stretch of imagination, remain unexplained any further in the assessee's hands. • As regards cash deposits aggregating to Rs.73,090/-, CIT(A) has neither discussed…

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

…requested that no addition should be made on account of the unsecured loans 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…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…e was no material evidence whatsoever to show that ITA. 2165 (Del) of 2008. Smt. Achla Dhawan, Meerut. 13 the money was deposited by the assessee or by anyone else in the bank from where it came back to the assessee as a gift. In case of Murlidhar Lahorimal, 280 ITR 512 (Gujarat), the donor had appeared before AO and also produced evidence in support of the source of fund; revenue had not disputed any of these facts, and so, the High Court opined that nothing had been brought on record to show that the explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory. 4.7.2 Reliance by the assessee on such case laws, therefore, d…

The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Hotel Sea View Pvt. Ltd., Nani Daman

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 1615/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…the impugned sum in assessee's hands. Section 68 doesn't require an assessee to prove source of the source of deposits. Hence, no addition is called for u/s.68. Reliance is placed on: " DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) " Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Pragati Co. op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) " CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ACIT vs. Hotel Sea view Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2007-08 In our considered opinion, in light of the above, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition. 4.4 So far deleting addition of Rs.1,05,84,968/- made on account of cash depo…

Manohar Lal Thakral, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3744/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. KC Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 143(3)

…ccount details of the donor which were verified by him. (e ) In terms of S.122 and S.173 of the Transfer of Property Act the appeal of the assessee should have been allowed. 4.1. He relied on the following case laws. (i) Murlidhar Lahori Mal vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) (ii) Nek Kumar vs. ACIT (2004) 191 CTR (Raj.) 5. The Ld.Sr.D.R. on the other hand opposed the contentions by submitting that: (a) Notice u/s 131 of the Act given to the so called donor Shri Lekhraj was returned by postal authorities with the remark ‘ flat is vacant, returned’ . (b) The assessee was confronted with the same but he did not…

Smt. Manjari vs. ITO

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the AY 2004-05 is allowed

ITA 101/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, . Counsel

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2004-05 Smt. Manjari, Income Tax Officer, Penthouse, Bilden Park, Ward-7(1), I Cross, G. M. Palya, Vs. Bengaluru. New Thippasandra, Bengaluru-560075. PAN : AHOPM2199R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Guruswamy, ITP Revenue by : Shri. Kamaladhar, . Counsel Date of hearing : 18.1.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.1.2017 O R D E R Per George George, Judicial Member This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order of…

Jayant B Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC13, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed,

ITA 5547/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5547, 5548, 5553/Mum/2012 & Ita No.7525/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102, 200304 & 200708) Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Vs. Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5455 To 5461/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102 To 200708) Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Vs. Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5549 To 5552, 5554/Mum/2012 &7524/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102, 200304 200405,200607 & 200708) Jayant B. Patel, B/27, Clifton Vs. Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp 6414 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivaram & Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2016

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ult therein. Further, the net agricultural income shown by the assessee group is around Rs.30,000/ per acre per annum which is not very high. 4. After relying on the judicial pronouncements in the case of Umesh Electricals 131 ITD 127, Pragati Coop Bank 278 ITR 170 and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd., 49 ITR 723, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition on account of agricultural income. Detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) are as per materials on record, therefore, do not warrant any interference on our part. Accordingly, we confirm the action of CIT(A) regardi…

A.C.I.T. Cent.Cir.13, Mumbai vs. Jayant B. Patel(HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed,

ITA 5455/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Sri. Jayan Paleri, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 150/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

…oning when father of the assessee has stated that he had deposited cash in the bank account, it is not permissible for the AO to reject such an explanation and draw an adverse inference. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Murlidhar Lohorimal Vs CIT 280 ITR 512, held that when the creditor/donor having appeared before the AO the genuineness of the transaction is established. In the present case assessee's father appeared and explained the transactions and it is undisputed that the assessee could not have earned such huge unaccounted income of Rs.24.00 lakhs for making deposits of the same in her bank ac…