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 367,164 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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 148Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumpreponderance of probabilitysection 31paper companyaddition u/s 68survey under section 133aaddition under section 68share application moneygenuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

Pr CIT 9 Kolkata vs. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/156/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H/Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Versus the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 11 2022 SCC Online ITAT 28 12 (2012) SCC Online (Del.) 6466 13 2007 6 SCC 21 14 1977 2 SCC 378 15 1963 50 ITR 1 SC ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 28 of 150 Nagpur & Anr., Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017 dated 10.4.2017 wherein the Court upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal which had held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/151/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H/Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Versus the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 11 2022 SCC Online ITAT 28 12 (2012) SCC Online (Del.) 6466 13 2007 6 SCC 21 14 1977 2 SCC 378 15 1963 50 ITR 1 SC ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 28 of 150 Nagpur & Anr., Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017 dated 10.4.2017 wherein the Court upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal which had held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H/Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Versus the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 11 2022 SCC Online ITAT 28 12 (2012) SCC Online (Del.) 6466 13 2007 6 SCC 21 14 1977 2 SCC 378 15 1963 50 ITR 1 SC ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 28 of 150 Nagpur & Anr., Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017 dated 10.4.2017 wherein the Court upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal which had held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs…

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…8.8 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. CIT (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 genuineness of the transaction. In C. Kant & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that on whom the onus of proof lies in a particul…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H/Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Versus the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 11 2022 SCC Online ITAT 28 12 (2012) SCC Online (Del.) 6466 13 2007 6 SCC 21 14 1977 2 SCC 378 15 1963 50 ITR 1 SC ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 28 of 150 Nagpur & Anr., Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017 dated 10.4.2017 wherein the Court upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal which had held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs…

ACIT Central Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2238/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

ACIT Central Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2237/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

ACIT Cent. Cir-4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2223/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

ACIT Cent. Cir -4(4), Mumbai vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2221/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1497/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1496/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1495/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1494/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1493/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1492/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…estblshes that such further inquiries investigations have subsequently been conducted by ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition , we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Natti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 1787]. It is the law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as discussed above we find that the case la co…

V E L Software Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1173/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

Section 68

…s observed that the burden to show that the amount received by purported gifts from the donors was a “gift” in the legal sense is upon the assessee. 13 VEL Software Limited 11. We find also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di. Hatti Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 has 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 of a receipt, whether it be of money or of other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…roperty cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to held that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source [Roshan Di Haiti vs. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 938 (SC)]. 5.3.20. Further references are made and reliance are placed to the various recent judicial pronouncements of Jurisdictional ITAT of Mumbai as well as Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay where similar issue were decided in favour of assessee. (i)In the case of Superline Construction P. Ltd. v/s.ITO 1Q(2)(4), Mumbai ITA No.3645/Mum/2014/ A.…

Shri Narendra B. Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Himatnagar

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

ITA 3153/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 68Section 69

…hich is not sufficient enough to discharge onus cast on the assessee under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT reported in 50 ITR 1 and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT reported in 107 ITR 938 has held that the primary onus to prove the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness with respect to the cash credit under section 68 of the Act lies upon the assessee. The relevant extract of observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (supra) reads as under: It is well established that the o…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ischarging the burden of the Department to prove the correctness of such additions. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (SC) • A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Madras) • Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC), • CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd 307 ITR 334 (Del.), • CIT vs Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del.) , • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) 6.4 It was also submitted that the amount deposited in the bank account was out of sale of jewellery which had been held by the assessee as stock in trade and since the d…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ischarging the burden of the Department to prove the correctness of such additions. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (SC) • A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Madras) • Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC), • CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd 307 ITR 334 (Del.), • CIT vs Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del.) , • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) 6.4 It was also submitted that the amount deposited in the bank account was out of sale of jewellery which had been held by the assessee as stock in trade and since the d…