How many judgments cite Sandeep Kumar v. CIT (?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite Sandeep Kumar v. CIT ( (310 ITR 75), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Sandeep Kumar v. CIT (

310 ITR 75High Court2009#8585 most cited

What is Sandeep Kumar v. CIT ( authority for?

Mere identification of a donor and showing the movement of a gift amount through banking channels is insufficient to prove the genuineness of a gift. The assessee bears the onus to establish not only the identity of the donor but also their capacity to make the gift.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Sandeep Kumar v. CIT · genuineness of gift · donor identity · donor capacity · banking channels · burden of proof · gift tax · income tax

Judgments citing Sandeep Kumar v. CIT (

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court reported at 165 ITR 453. In this case, the issue related to additions made in the trading results of the assessee which are not applicable to the present case. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported at 310 ITR 75 as submitted by the AR in his support buttresses the stand of this office that when the assessee offers no explanation about a credit the same has to be treated as deemed income u/s 68. The judgments of Allahabad High Court (117 ITR 316), Punjab & Haryana High Court (367 ITR 281) and Ahmedabad Tribunal Bench (ITA No. 2 of 2013) have also been quot…

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court reported at 165 ITR 453. In this case, the issue related to additions made in the trading results of the assessee which are not applicable to the present case. The Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported at 310 ITR 75 as submitted by the AR in his support buttresses the stand of this office that when the assessee offers no explanation about a credit the same has to be treated as deemed income u/s 68. The judgments of Allahabad High Court (117 ITR 316), Punjab & Haryana High Court (367 ITR 281) and Ahmedabad Tribunal (ITA No. 2 of 2013) are not applicable to th…

Anoop Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 70(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 5968/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…Kumar 292 ITR 554 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Yashpal Goyal 9 ITA.No.5968/Del./2018 Shri Anoop Jain, New Delhi. vs. CIT 310 ITR 75. Considering the above discussion, it is clear that assessee failed to produce sufficient evidence or material on record to prove creditworthiness of the donor and genuineness of the gift in the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Smt. Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) have held tha…

Sh. Krishan Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 69

…id through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence. The High Court misdirected itself and erred in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact.” 10.2. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Yash Pal Goel vs. CIT 310 ITR 75 held as under : “Held, dismissing the appeal that the financial position of M. suggested that he neither had the capacity to make the gift nor the source from where the gift was made. No reason whatsoever had been assigned for gifting such a huge amount by M to the assessee. M never visited the home of the assessee and hence there is no love and…

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2250/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/s. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [PAN No.AABCT 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant ShriShankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronou…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…435 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere identification and showing movement though banking channels is not sufficient. Similar view was taken in Sandeep Kumar v. CIT (293 ITR 294) (Del), Jaspal Singh 290 ITR 306 (P & H), Yash Pal Goel ,310 ITR 75/76(P&H} and Rajeev Tandon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 77 of 2007 dated 13.7.2007 as also in Subhash Chander Sekhri v: Deputy CIT [2007] 290 ITR 300 (P&H).In the present case also, it is not established that unsecured loan creditors i.e 13 companies which were found to have meager cash balances/capital in their books of acco…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

Rajiv Chandran, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-32(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajiv Chandran Vs Ito B-45, Gulmohar Park, Ward 32(5) New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Akdpc3523B Appellant Respondent

Section 147

…i High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar 292 ITR 552, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Yashpal Goel vs. CIT 6 AY 2010-11 Rajiv Chandran 310 ITR 75. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the matter. I, confirm the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs. 8. No other source of balance amounts have been explained and is not supported by any evidence. Ld. Counsel for assessee also contended that assessee is working in UNO, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. Since, cash amount ha…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…nnels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim of gift is made by the asscsscc, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make such : gift.” Sandeep Kumar HUF, 293 ITR 294 (Del.); “Genuineness of gift: Mere identification of the donor and showing movement of the gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Where the assessee failed to establish that gift was genuine, the Tribunal was justified in confirming additions.” K.L. Aggarwal vs. CIT, 190 ITR 303 (Del.); “Amoun…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.S.Aggarwal

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018

Section 132Section 158Section 260

…ITA No. 169/2005+connected appeal Page 1 of 77 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 169/2005 Reserved on :1st November, 2017 % Date of decision:23rd April, 2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Prashant Bhargava, Advocates for the Income Tax Department. Versus M. S. AGGARWAL .…

Mr Vidit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3075/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia and Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DR

Section 131

…and was paid through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence. he High Court misdirected itself and erred in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact." Hon'b1c Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Yash Pal Goel Vs CIT 310 ITR 75 held that "Held, dismissing the appeal that the financial position of M. suggested that he neither had the capacity to make the gift nor the source from where the gift was made. No reason whatsoever had been assigned for gifting such a huge amount by M to the assessee. M never visited the home of the assessee and hence there was no love and aff…

Kalsha Builders P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…was also placed on the following decisions. i.Rajeev Tandon vs ACIT (164 Taxman 271) (Del J-IC) ii. CIT vs Anil Kumar (292 ITR 552) (Del) iii.D.C.Rastogi vs ACIT (57 ITD 295) (Del) iv. CIT vs Mira S. Khurana (333 fTR 488)(Gujarat HC) v. Yash Pal Goel vs CIT (310 ITR 75)(P&H) 49. In the above cases the AO had made addition for gifts received by the assessee based on findings that the gifts were not genuine. Further the assessee in that case had not placed on record anything to show as to what was financial capacity of donors, what was creditworthiness of donors, what kind of relationship donors had with assessee,…

Kalsha Builders P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7643/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68