Tolaram Daga v. CIT

59 ITR 632High Court1966#1938 most cited

What is Tolaram Daga v. CIT authority for?

An assessee claiming cash credits or loans has the primary burden to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The judgment also addresses the validity of rejecting books of accounts during assessment.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tolaram Daga v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained loans · burden of proof · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · rejection of books of account · Section 133(6) · identity of creditor

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 12AASection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 106source of sourcesection 5(2)share capital and share premiumcreditworthiness of the creditorsection 250(4)share application moneysection 34addition under section 68rule 46aadmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Tolaram Daga v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI vs. URBAINIA SPACES PVT. LTD., MANDAWALI, DELHI

ITA 2012/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 13, Flat No.19, Ground Floor, Prop. No. Delhi. 01, Pardhan Complex, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aabcu6277D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…uld like draw your attention on judgments of various Hon'ble Courts of law given hereunder:- i. Sumati Dayal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 Taxman 89 (SC) ii. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Limited V CIT(2003) 263 ITR 289(Cal HC) ii. iii. Tola Ram Daga V CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) iv. Dhansi Ram Agarwala V CIT (1966) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) v. Khandelwal Constructions V CIT 227 ITR 900(Gau) 5.3.1 I have considered the facts of case and the submissions filed by the appellant. The assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan from Sagarika Sea Craft Ltd. The appellant had filed confirmed…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA. vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

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

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…llant is not required to explain the source of source as held by the judicial forums in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Ass.); (iv) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1998) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune ITAT). The appellant's prima facie reasonable explanation cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicious or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds as held by the Courts in the following judicial pronouncements: (i) R.B.N.J. Naldu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR) 194(Nag.); (ii…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

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

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…llant is not required to explain the source of source as held by the judicial forums in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Ass.); (iv) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1998) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune ITAT). The appellant's prima facie reasonable explanation cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicious or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds as held by the Courts in the following judicial pronouncements: (i) R.B.N.J. Naldu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR) 194(Nag.); (ii…

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…ons with the help of books of accounts. The\ngenuiiness of the accounts has not been challenged by ld AO, the accounts\nare relevant prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof under\nsection 34 of the Evidence Act – TolaramDaga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632\n(Assam); DhansiramAgarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gau.)\nc. 5. The Ld. AO failed to examine and considered the books of accounts\nproduced during the course of assessment proceeding and rejected the same\nby solely relying of the statement recorded. Though the assessee was not\nliable to maintain the books of account as he was not carrying ou…

SRS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO(E), FARIDABAD

ITA 941/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…f the additions so made:- [i] Mangilal Agarwal (Late) vs ACIT 300 ITR 372 (Raj.); [ii] Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (Raj.HC) 219 CTR 571; [iii] Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj.); [iv] CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP); [v] Tolaram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam); [vi] CIT vs Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.); and [vii] Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden casted upon it of proving the genuineness…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…ged. xxvi. The Ld. AO has accepted in totality the Appellant’s books of accounts. In such a scenario, the LD. AO cannot rely on diaries to make additions. In this regard, reliance is placed on the rulings of the Assam High Court (‘HC’) in Tolaram Daga v. CIT (59 ITR 632) and that of the Gauhati HC in Dhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT (217 ITR 4). xxvii. Without prejudice to the above, ‘books of accounts’ are defined to include ledgers, day-books, cash books, account books and other books, whether kept in the written form or in electronic form or in digital form or as print-outs of data stored in such electronic form or…

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…ged. xxvi. The Ld. AO has accepted in totality the Appellant’s books of accounts. In such a scenario, the LD. AO cannot rely on diaries to make additions. In this regard, reliance is placed on the rulings of the Assam High Court (‘HC’) in Tolaram Daga v. CIT (59 ITR 632) and that of the Gauhati HC in Dhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT (217 ITR 4). xxvii. Without prejudice to the above, ‘books of accounts’ are defined to include ledgers, day-books, cash books, account books and other books, whether kept in the written form or in Page 24 of 127 ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 electronic form or in digital form or in a floppy…

SUDESH KUMAR SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 2012/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 13, Flat No.19, Ground Floor, Prop. No. Delhi. 01, Pardhan Complex, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aabcu6277D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…uld like draw your attention on judgments of various Hon'ble Courts of law given hereunder:- i. Sumati Dayal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 Taxman 89 (SC) ii. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Limited V CIT(2003) 263 ITR 289(Cal HC) ii. iii. Tola Ram Daga V CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) iv. Dhansi Ram Agarwala V CIT (1966) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) v. Khandelwal Constructions V CIT 227 ITR 900(Gau) 5.3.1 I have considered the facts of case and the submissions filed by the appellant. The assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan from Sagarika Sea Craft Ltd. The appellant had filed confirmed…

DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. LATE SHRI HAJI MOHD. DILSHAD THROUGH L/H SHRI DILNAWAZ & MRS. MEHRUNISSA, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

…rder. The ld AR argued that the rejection of the books of accounts is not valid.The ld AR relied on following judgments of Hon’ble High Courts- i. St. Teresa's Oil Milh 1. State of Kerala, (1970) 76 ITR 365, 367- 8 (Ker.). Also see, Tolaram Duga s CIT, (1966) 59 ITR 632, 635-6 (Assam)). Page 7 of 16 ITA nos. 3555 & 3754/Del/2017 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad V ACIT Muzaffarnagar ii. CIT Vs. Amitbhar Gunwantbhai, (1981) 129 ITR 573, 580 (Guj.)). iii. Dunichand Dhani Ram Vs. CIT, AIR 1926 Lah 161-2 ITC 183. Also see, George Oummen Vs. C. Ag. LT., (1963) 52 ITR 977 (Cal.)]." iv. CIT Vs A.Raman & Co., (1968) 67 ITR…

JADE GRANITES INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 81/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…8 Jade Granites Industries v. ITO income of the year. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated separately. [Addition Rs.30,00,000] In support of above discussion relied on following judicial decision: In Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.) the High Court held that requiring the firm or the individual partner to go further and adduce proof of the sources from which the deposits in question appearing the accounts in the name of the third parties were derived by them, would be placing a burden, on the firm as well as the partners, which is not required or justified by law. The c…

ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…submitted that once assessee points out the depositor from whom he has received money and depositor earns the advancement of money the source of source cannot be explore for which reliance was placed on judgment: • Tolaram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 59 ITR 632 (Assam) • CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.) • Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) • Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahmd.) • DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) • CIT vs. Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275 (Statute) • CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Ashwini Kumar Taneja 6 •…

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

…as unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case.  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) Where, in the accounts of a firm, a deposit is shown to have been made by a third party, the wife of a partner in the firm (the assessee), who claims the money as hers and that it was she that made the deposit, and the genuineness and regularity of the accounts have not been challenged, the accounts are relevant and are prima facie proof o…

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 68

…l [2005] 147 taxman 448 (All.) has held as under:- "11. it has been held by the various High Courts that the assessee cannot be asked to prove source of source or the origin of origin vide S. Hastimal v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad), Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull[1972] CTR 411: [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT 1975 CTR (Pat)1: (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat)." ii) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/12003] 127 Taxman 523, has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Rabin Chaudhuri, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Bansal, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…of accounts are being maintained which were subject to two audits during the year as evident from the audit report submitted by appellant. AO could have used it as a good material to base his assessment. In the case of Tolaram Daga Vs. CIT reported in (1966) 59 ITR 632(Gau) wherein their lordships have observed and held as under:- "It would appear that the accounts of the firm which had been produced in the case had been accepted and acted upon by the department and no serious challenge had been made to their genuineness or that they were kept regularly In the course of business. That being the case, the account…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…required to be proved in regard to the creditworthiness of the investor. Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions wherein it is held that, the source for the source and origin for the origin need not be proved by the investor. i) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 5.19 (i) In the present case the appellant has not only proved the source but also the source of the source. The investor Mr. Samyak C. Veera has accepted the investment. It is open for the department to initiate ITA Nos.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…required to be proved in regard to the creditworthiness of the investor. Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions wherein it is held that, the source for the source and origin for the origin need not be proved by the investor. i) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 5.19 (i) In the present case the appellant has not only proved the source but also the source of the source. The investor Mr. Samyak C. Veera has accepted the investment. It is open for the department to initiate ITA Nos.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…required to be proved in regard to the creditworthiness of the investor. Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions wherein it is held that, the source for the source and origin for the origin need not be proved by the investor. i) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) 5.19 (i) In the present case the appellant has not only proved the source but also the source of the source. The investor Mr. Samyak C. Veera has accepted the investment. It is open for the department to initiate ITA Nos.…

NIMBUS PROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-2, NOIDA

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

ITA 929/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…. (96 taxmann.com 403) (SC)  CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs.…

NIMBUS PROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-2, NOIDA

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

ITA 928/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…. (96 taxmann.com 403) (SC)  CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs.…

NIMBUS PROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-2, NOIDA

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

ITA 927/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…. (96 taxmann.com 403) (SC)  CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs.…

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

Tolaram Daga v. CIT (59 ITR 632) — Cited in 59 Judgments | BharatTax