Tanya Industries 322 ITR 394 (Born) IV. CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal366 ITR 217 (Raj) & P 232 v. CIT

43 Taxmann.com 395High Court2014#4695 most cited

What is Tanya Industries 322 ITR 394 (Born) IV. CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal366 ITR 217 (Raj) & P 232 v. CIT authority for?

The court considers whether an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68, relating to share application money, is justified.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Tanya Industries 322 ITR 394 · section 68 · share application money · addition under section 68 · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · onus of proof · cash credits · unexplained money · bogus LTCG

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Tanya Industries 322 ITR 394 (Born) IV. CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal366 ITR 217 (Raj) & P 232 v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Sonam Builders, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2926/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-3 M/S. Sonam Builders Shanti Niwas, 1St Floor Room No.10, A-Wing, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park New Golden Road No.16-Z, Wagle Nest Phase Xiii, 100 Industrial Estate, Thane(W) Ft.Road, Opp. Hanuman Mandir, Bhayander(E), Dist.Thane-401 105 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfs3498J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri,Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28/02/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.8,17,50/- Made On Account Of Unaccounted Sales Of Car Parking Area, Not Included In The Sale Of Agreements Of The Flats. A.Y.2013-14 Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.,50,000/- Made On Account Of Unaccounted Income On F.S.I Sale, Without Appreciating The Fact, That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove, The Sale Consideration Mentioned In The Seized Unsigned Agreement Is Not True.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 80GSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2926/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ DCIT, CC-3 M/s. Sonam Builders Shanti Niwas, 1st Floor Room No.10, A-Wing, Vs. 6th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park New Golden Road No.16-Z, Wagle Nest Phase XIII, 100 Industrial Estate, Thane(W) Ft.Road, Opp. Hanuman Mandir, Bhayander(E), Dist.Thane-401 105 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACFS3498J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Tripuri,CIT-DR A…