Rajendran & Ors. v. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354

291 ITR 178Reported decision2007#8971 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing Rajendran & Ors. v. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354

RAMESH CHAND INVESTMENT & LEASING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ed in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); [1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on. K. S. Kannan Kunhi v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757 (Ker) considered. Decision of the Madras High Court in A. Rajendran v. Asst. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 178 reversed.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. NovaPromoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 0169- has distinguished the case of CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 119 (Delhi) and has held as under: “Even where a reference of a question of law is made to the High Court in its advisory juri…

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 360/COCH/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-2016

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 359/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 358/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 355/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 354/COCH/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 352/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 351/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 350/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, THE CENTRAL CIRCLE,KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 349/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 348/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P. SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 347/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessing Officer himself was not convinced that the funds were that of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 IT…

Rajendran & Ors. v. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 (291 ITR 178) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax