United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT

208 ITR 495High Court1994#19840 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,351 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT

Abhinav Agarwal HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3641/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3640/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Abhinav Agarwal, Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Circle-1, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Meerut New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afzpa5664E

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

…nuine and are shrouded in mystery, as to why the so-called transactions lead to exorbitant returns which are made tax free. 36. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Korlav Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 280 and CIT Vs Precision finance P. Ltd. 208 ITR 495 had observed and held that mere filing of confirmation and transaction through the banking channel is not enough to prove the genuineness. 37. The Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) has held that “Assessing Officer could not accept genuineness merely on the basis of bank statement. 38. Further, the…

Abhinav Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3640/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove that the amount belonged to the assessee. [CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT (1992)198 ITR 147 (Ker.); CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 495(Cal.). 5.8 Section 68 of the Act was also considered by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). The Apex Court held as follows:- "The question is what is the true nature and scope of section 68 of the Act? When and in what circumstances would section 68 of the Act come into play? A bare reading of section…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…d the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove that the amount belonged to the assessee. [CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT (1992)198 ITR 147 (Ker.); CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 495(Cal.). It has also been held by the various High Courts that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source or the origin of origin. Reference may be made to the decisions in S. Hastimal vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273(Mad); Tola Ram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4 AY: 2006-07 (Cal.)]. (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.); CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Ra…