How many judgments cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT?

477 judgments on BharatTax cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (107 ITR 938), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE, Section 69A.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

107 ITR 938Supreme Court of India1977#147 most cited

What is Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT authority for?

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

477

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT · Section 68 · assessee onus of proof · cash credits · genuineness of transaction · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · additions to income · unexplained money · Section 143(3) · Section 147

Also reported as

2 SCC 378

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 148 Section 144

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof source of source share capital and share premium preponderance of probability section 31 paper company addition u/s 68 survey under section 133a addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

PCIT-07, Delhi vs. M/S Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 135 / 2023HC Delhi07 Mar 2023

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…The onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti VS. crT (1997) 107 ITR 938 (SC). 8.9 It is also well settled that in the case of cash credit entry it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors but also to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transaction. In C. Kant & Co. vs Commissioner Of Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signin…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

…ansaction and creditworthiness of the parties. The Ld. Assessing Officer relying on the decision parties. The Ld. Assessing Officer relying on the decision in the case parties. The Ld. Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) and Kale Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) han Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) etc. held all han Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) the 29 parties as unexplained cash credit the 29 parties as unexplained cash credit…

Alwar General Finance Co. (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 332/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel, JCIT) a

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 68

…ann, com 290 (Guj) held that where assessee failed to prove the capacity of concerned persons who alleged to have given unsecured loan and /or gift, impugned addition made u/s 68 was to be confirmed. -The Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT (1992) in 2 SCC 378 held that if the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the addition back to income of assessee. -The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Neni Chand Kothari (2003) in 264 ITR 254 held that merely because the transaction has taken place be cheque is not sufficient to discharg…

M/S. Dwarka Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 524/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Dwarka Goods Private Limited vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata PAN: AADCD 1402 B Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 08.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 07.02.2023 For the Assessee Shri Sunil Surana, AR For the Revenue Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.07.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referr…

M/S Starland Vinimay Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…31/[1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal.): Proof of Identity of the creditors; Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking Section 68. I…

Navroop Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 613/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…9 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Navroop Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Capacity of creditors to advance money;and Genuineness of transaction This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking Section 68. I…

Navroop Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 151/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

Mr. Ganapathy Palaniyappan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle -8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 557/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Ganapathy Palaniyappan, Dcit, T/D2 Anna Fruit Market, V. Non-Corporate Circle 8(1), Koyembedu, Chennai. Chennai – 600 092. [Pan: Ahppp-3037-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 557/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Ganapathy Palaniyappan, DCIT, T/D2 Anna Fruit Market, v. Non-Corporate Circle 8(1), Koyembedu, Chennai. Chennai – 600 092. [PAN: AHPPP-3037-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, J…

Geeta Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. DCIT/ ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 285/JPR/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Ld. Pr. Cit, Jaipur For Obtaining Approval Inasmuch Assessee Has Purchased Geeta Devi Saini Vs Dcit,Circle-4, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 148Section 68

…her that the receipt was not income or that if it was it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it a taxable income. - The Apex Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of money or others cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee." 6.3.3 In appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted a statem…

Mousami Choudhury, Varanasi vs. Dy. CIT, Range - 02, Varanasi

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

…y or other property and no explanation was made by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income from any particular source. Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi 8. In view of the above it is submitted that the theassessee's involvement in whole matter is only gain some commission and assessee is completely aware from all transactions. The explanation given by the assesse…

Mousami Choudhury, Varanasi vs. Dy. CIT, Range - 2, Varanasi

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

ITO, WD.-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mainak Suppliers Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoysarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri HukumaSema, CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ “C” कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI SONJOYSARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Mainak Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-9(1) Vs. 178, M. G. Road Kolkata Kolkata-700007 (PAN: AAFCM6497F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri HukumaSema, CIT Respondent by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Date of Hearing : 02.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.12.2022 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-7, K…

Toplink Developers Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 710/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Toplink Developers Consultancy Pvt. Ltd......………Appellant [PAN: AADCT 5284 F] Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata........................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concl…

M/S Silvertoss Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2282/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 2282/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Silvertoss Realtors Pvt. Ltd.…...........................Appellant [PAN: AAPCS 8325 N] Vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata........................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Sunil Surana, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R, appeared on behalf of the Rev…

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3267/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80H

…amounting to Rs 2,40,75,750/- as cash credit as defined in sec 68. AO rightly observed that in the garb of sales it is assesses own money which he introduced as sales. We further relied on the following judicial pronouncement as under  Roshan di Hatti Vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (S.C)  Kale khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT 50 ITR 1(S.C)  CIT Vs M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (S.C)  A.Govindarajulu Mudalair Vs CIT 34 ITR 807 (S.C) In view of the above addition u/s 68 is rightly made and ground no -4 raised by assessee are dismissed. 7 ITA No. 3267 Mum 2013 & 404 Mum 2016-Sabara Impex Ltd. 10. As far as ground no-5 is con…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…egative. We, accordingly, hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in deleting the above sum of Rs.16,700/- from the assessment of the firm." c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (107 ITR 938 held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proo…

Harish Sharma HUF, B-1, Patodiya Marg, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 318/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…dit entry as income of the assessee. Therefore, prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the genuineness of such credit appearing in its books. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it is the income of the appellant and no further burden is on the A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Vandana Ispat Limited, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.183/RPR/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Vs M/s Vandana Ispat Ltd., Vandana Building, M.G.Road, Raipur-492001 PAN No. : AABCV 1344 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.B.Doshi, CA सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार…

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1381/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A

…fact that assessment were completed after the HUF got disrupted, it must be held, therefore, that the proceedings were irregular and without jurisdiction. The following judicial pronouncements lays down the view as stated above: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 177 (SC), Rameswar Sirkar v. ITO [1973] 88 ITR 374 (Cal.), Shyam Sundar Bajaj v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 317 (Cal.). Thus, we are of the view that the assessment made on 30.11.2006 on the assessee as HUF is not valid as on that date, the HUF was not in existence. Thus, we cancel the assessment made on the assessee in the status of HUF.” 9. In the instant ca…

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1380/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A