Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

Shri Bharatkumar Iashwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Cirl-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

The ITO Ward-1 (2) (1), Rajkot vs. Shri Khrajmal Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Rajkot

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Bhatiya, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

…ash deposit so made in the bank account. In assessee’s case, against cash deposits cheques were issued to some other entities. For above view, reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries 294 ITR 610 (All) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case CIT vs. D.K.Garg ITA No.115/2005 dated 04.08.2017. (ii) As the amount of cash credits were standing in the names of different persons which all along the assessee had been claiming as genuine deposit, withdrawal / payment of amount to different set of persons would not at all entitle the applicant to cla…

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

…ash deposit so made in the bank account. In assessee’s case, against cash deposits cheques were issued to some other entities. For above view, reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries 294 ITR 610 (All) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case CIT vs. D.K.Garg ITA No.115/2005 dated 04.08.2017. (ii) As the amount of cash credits were standing in the names of different persons which all along the assessee had been claiming as genuine deposit, withdrawal / payment of amount to different set of persons would not at all entitle the applicant to cla…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

…een held that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not entitled to benefit of peak credit. 7. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) wherein in has been held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of…