Ridhkarandas Poonamchand Bhura v. CIT(MP)

231 ITR 604Reported decision#23802 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Ridhkarandas Poonamchand Bhura v. CIT(MP)

Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Jatiya, Mumbai

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

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

…e Allahabad High Court in the case of Srnt, Anand Bala Bhushan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (217 ITR 144), the produce from this land is not agricultural income. In the case of Gopi Ram Lila Vs CIT (Raj) 225 ITR 320, Rakhkarandas Poonamchand Bhura Vs CIT(MP) 231 ITR 604 the courts have held that when assessee claims exemption as gricultural income, it is the duty of assessee to substantiate it and the unsubstantiated portion can be treated as income from other sources. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, the amount of Rs. 1,03,02,193/- shown as agriculture income is hereby treated as income from other s…

Jai Deep Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ome is a bald claim, which cannot be accepted. The above view gets support from the decision in the case of Avdhesh Kumar Jain Vs. CIT reported in 178 ITR 433; Gopi Ram Lila Vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 320; Ridhkaran Das Poonam Chand Bhura Vs. CIT reported in 231 ITR 604; and Smt. Kamala Bai Vs. CIT reported in 221 ITR 674. In the light of the facts discussed above, it is held that the appellant's claim that payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- out of the agricultural income remains to be proved. Hence, the AO's action in treating Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained cash payment is sustained. The addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- is…

Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1879/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1879/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Rakesh Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, Kolkata – 700 016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adlpa6462E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri V.N. Purohit & H.V. Bhartwaj, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata Dated 14.06.2017 Passed In Case No.83/Cit(A)-10/Ward-36(1)/2016-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal. His Former Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Agricultural Income Claim Involving An Amount Of Rs.2,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer In His Assessment Order Dated 04.03.16 Observed That Although The Assessee Had Filed His Written Submissions Making Self-Declaration Of The Agricultural Land Deed Amount Received From Two Different Farmers, The Same Merely Amounted To A Self-Serving Document Without Any Supporting Evidence He Thus Disallowed The Assessee’S Claim.

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit & H.V. Bhartwaj, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 1ASection 2Section 2(14)

…. Such ratio emanates from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gopi Chand Lila Vs CIT( Raj) 225 ITR 320 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ridhkarandas Poonamchand Bhura Vs CIT(MP) 231 ITR 604. With such view in consideration, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant- assessee, and therefore confirm the action of the Ld. AO. The ground of appeal accordingly stands dismissed.” 4. Learned counsel representing assessee vehemently contends during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in addin…