Sumati Dayal v. CIT

ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai, Bandra (East) vs. Chirania Trading LLP, Goregaon (East)

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim for exemption made by the Assessee under Section 10(38) of the Act in the return of income relying upon the findings of the Investigation wing and the theory of probability [as propounded in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) (SC) and the C.O. No. 39/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 case of Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC)]. The Assessing Officer, thus, made addition of INR 14,71,89,021/- under Section 68 of the Act holding the entire the proceeds raising from sale of shares of KDJH as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer also made a…

ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Chirania Trading LLP, Mumbai

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 150/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No. 993/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITA No. 992/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra Appellant Vs Chirania Trading LLP, Mumbai 914, Corporate Annex, Near Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Lane, Goregaon East Mumbai-4000

…, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim for exemption made by the Assessee under Section 10(38) of the Act in the return of income relying upon the findings of the Investigation wing and the theory of probability [as propounded in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) (SC) and the C.O. No. 39/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 case of Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC)]. The Assessing Officer, thus, made addition of INR 14,71,89,021/- under Section 68 of the Act holding the entire the proceeds raising from sale of shares of KDJH as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer also made a…

Abdulla Mohamed Yusuf Patel, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

…lying the test of human probabilities". Similarly, in a later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it TR 801 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it TR 801 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed that, is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed that, is for alleger t…

Abdulla Mohamed Yusuf Patel, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

…lying the test of human probabilities". Similarly, in a later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it TR 801 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it TR 801 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed that, is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed that, is for alleger t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…. At this juncture, it is submitted by ld Counsel that prices of shares are determined by the market forces and not solely on the basis of financial statements. 24. We also note that Assessing officer and CIT(A) has relied on the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC). We are of the view that said decision is not applicable to the assessee under consideration, as the assessee has successfully demonstrated with help of evidences on record to have made the transaction of purchase and sale of alleged shares. No single material was brought on record indicating name of any of the entry provider taking assesse…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Ashok Jasraj Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…any particulars source The Calcutta High Court in the case of Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (208 ITR 465) has held that mere proof of identity of creditor or that the transactions were by cheque is not sufficient. The Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) held that if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof any sum credited in the books of accounts then the same is chargeable to tax as income of the assessee. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of person from whom loan and…

Amit Sajjan Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AmitSajjanKumarGupta, DCIT-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, RoomNo.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABRPG2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ravikant Pathak.AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE -…