Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn v. CIT

130 ITR 602High Court1981#12109 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 127 of the Income Tax ActSection 129 of the Income Tax ActSection 143(2) of the Income Tax ActSection 144 of the Income Tax ActSection 145(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 269T of the Income Tax ActSection 68 of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn v. CIT

Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 297/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 5

…failed to establish the capacity of NRI donor to make gift of huge amount or the source from which gift was made and hence addition of amount as deemed income of assessee was held justified. 12.2 In the case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court opined that "unless the assessee had given the source of investment of this additional amount, whatever be the amount, that must have come from some source of income of the assessee." 12.3 However, without reference to any supporting evidence or material, the ITO cannot make any addition as unexplained investment no…

A.V.K. Viswanadha Raju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 146/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…following cases, penalty was held to be leviable where there is unexplained investment and this is deemed to be income for purpose of levying penalty: 1. Loknath Chowdhry Vs. CIT (Cal) 1551TR 291. 2. Rahmat Development & Engineering Corporation Vs CIT (Cal) 130 ITR 602. 3. CIT Vs. Ra/tam Singh Grewal (P&H) 304 ITR 75. 4. Charudatt H Danget Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITA T, Mumbai) 126 lTD 483. These above mentioned cases are clearly applicable to the instant case, wherein unexplained investment was detected and added to the total income, and hence can be construed as concealment for the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…ed to establish the capacity of NRI donor to make gift of huge amount or the source from which gift was made and hence addition of amount as deemed income of assessee was held justified. 12.2 In the case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court opined that "unless the assessee had given the source of investment of 32 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 this additional amount, whatever be the amount, that must have come from some source of income of the assessee." 12.3 However, without reference to any supporting evidence or material,the ITO cannot make any additi…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…ed to establish the capacity of NRI donor to make gift of huge amount or the source from which gift was made and hence addition of amount as deemed income of assessee was held justified. 12.2 In the case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court opined that "unless the assessee had given the source of investment of 32 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 this additional amount, whatever be the amount, that must have come from some source of income of the assessee." 12.3 However, without reference to any supporting evidence or material,the ITO cannot make any additi…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…ed to establish the capacity of NRI donor to make gift of huge amount or the source from which gift was made and hence addition of amount as deemed income of assessee was held justified. 12.2 In the case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court opined that "unless the assessee had given the source of investment of 32 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 this additional amount, whatever be the amount, that must have come from some source of income of the assessee." 12.3 However, without reference to any supporting evidence or material,the ITO cannot make any additi…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…ed to establish the capacity of NRI donor to make gift of huge amount or the source from which gift was made and hence addition of amount as deemed income of assessee was held justified. 12.2 In the case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court opined that "unless the assessee had given the source of investment of 32 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 this additional amount, whatever be the amount, that must have come from some source of income of the assessee." 12.3 However, without reference to any supporting evidence or material,the ITO cannot make any additi…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…ed to establish the capacity of NRI donor to make gift of huge amount or the source from which gift was made and hence addition of amount as deemed income of assessee was held justified. 12.2 In the case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court opined that "unless the assessee had given the source of investment of 32 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 this additional amount, whatever be the amount, that must have come from some source of income of the assessee." 12.3 However, without reference to any supporting evidence or material,the ITO cannot make any additi…

M/S Flow & Fluid Control Centre, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-34(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.R. Singh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Kol/2010 dated 6.11.2015. In response to this, the ld DR filed a written submission dated 30.11.2016 by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rahmat Development and Engineering Corporation vs CIT reported in (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal) dated 3.7.1980. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. It is well settled that the penalty proceedings are distinct and separate from assessment proceedings. It is also well settled that the ld AO should specifically pinpoint the charge of offence committed by the assessee inasmuch as to whether the assessee had concealed the particulars o…

Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn v. CIT (130 ITR 602) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax