Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Patna HC) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

…an Timber vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati H.C.) (iii) Neeru Devi Kothari vs ITO (2001) 116 Taxman 224 (Jodhpur) (iv) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Patna HC) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254(Gau) (vi) S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 (vii) CIT vs PithampurConzima (P) Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court (viii) TolaramDaga's case [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) 11. In reply the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus under section 68 of the Act and the AO and the CIT(A) were justif…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

…an Timber vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati H.C.) (iii) Neeru Devi Kothari vs ITO (2001) 116 Taxman 224 (Jodhpur) (iv) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Patna HC) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254(Gau) (vi) S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 (vii) CIT vs PithampurConzima (P) Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court (viii) TolaramDaga's case [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) 11. In reply the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus under section 68 of the Act and the AO and the CIT(A) were justif…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUMIT MITTAL, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…eceived and creditworthiness of the creditor. Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Goa) 6. Inability of the department to verify the explanation offered by the assessee is not sufficient ground for rejection of explanation. S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 7. An explanation prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. The ITO cannot merely reject a reasonably good explanation and convert good proof into no proof. CIT vs K.S. Kannan Kunhi87 ITR 3958. 8. Credit in the name of close relative, the assessee cannot be presu…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUMIT MITTAL, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…eceived and creditworthiness of the creditor. Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Goa) 6. Inability of the department to verify the explanation offered by the assessee is not sufficient ground for rejection of explanation. S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 7. An explanation prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. The ITO cannot merely reject a reasonably good explanation and convert good proof into no proof. CIT vs K.S. Kannan Kunhi87 ITR 3958. 8. Credit in the name of close relative, the assessee cannot be presu…