Uttam Chand Jain v. CIT

320 ITR 554High Court2010#5261 most cited

What is Uttam Chand Jain v. CIT authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made on mere suspicion or presumption. There must be tangible material and evidence on record to support any addition made by the Assessing Officer.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Uttam Chand Jain · CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain · 320 ITR 554 · addition cannot be made on assumption basis · material on record as evidence for addition · addition made on basis of presumption cannot be sustained

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 144BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 2(12)

Issues it is cited on

retracted statementpaper companybogus ltcglive linkaddition under section 68entry operatorpenny stocksection 10(38)principal commissioner of income-taxtangible materiallong term capital gainsshare application money

Judgments citing Uttam Chand Jain v. CIT

Gaurav Vikram Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 4380/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Gaurav Vikram Shah Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai 201, Jain Bhavan, Dr.Bhajekar Street, Vs Piramal Chambers, Morarjee Svp Road, Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Maharashtra - 400004. Maharashtra-400013. [Pan: Aadps4826M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…of entire transaction instead of considering the component of income on such transaction. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws;  ACIT Vs Gunwanti Omprakash Ranka in ITA No. 665/Pn/2009,  CIT Vs Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom) 7. On the other hand, ld. Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR submits that ld. CIT(A) in his order clearly recorded his finding that there is no stamp and seal of delivery of goods by receiving entity. Thus, the authenticity of transaction is doubtful. 8…

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…1 Taxman 207 (Mag.) 4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del). 5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.) 7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA) 8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom), 9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang) Addition cannot be made on assumption basis. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay M…

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

…1 Taxman 207 (Mag.) 4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del). 5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.) 7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA) 8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom), 9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang) Addition cannot be made on assumption basis. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…le Supreme court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). Where the assessee has shown all the evidence to substantiate the case, the same cannot be ingnored by the department and claim unsatisfactory. In the case of CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain (2010) 320 ITR 554, wherein the assessee showed all the proof available with him to prove the genuine sale of jewellery but the Assessing Officer disallowed the same on extraneous grounds. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under: ITA Nos. 1469 & 1470/Del/2023 16 Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd. “…….The fact that the jewellery claimed to have been sold by the asses…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…le Supreme court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). Where the assessee has shown all the evidence to substantiate the case, the same cannot be ingnored by the department and claim unsatisfactory. In the case of CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain (2010) 320 ITR 554, wherein the assessee showed all the proof available with him to prove the genuine sale of jewellery but the Assessing Officer disallowed the same on extraneous grounds. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under: ITA Nos. 1469 & 1470/Del/2023 16 Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd. “…….The fact that the jewellery claimed to have been sold by the asses…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…1 Taxman 207 (Mag.) 4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del). 5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.) 7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA) 8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom), 9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang) Page No. 34 Udayan Grover Addition cannot be made on assumption basis. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91…

Aakash Films Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -50, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1762/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…1 Taxman 207 (Mag.) 4. Bansal High Carbons (P)Ltd. 2009) 223 CTR 179 (Del). 5. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) 6. CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendra and others (2008) 303 ITR 235 (Mad.) 7. Abid Malik Vs UOI, (2009TIOL272HC Del-FEMA) 8. CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom), 9. Srinivas Naik (2009)117 ITD 201 (Bang) -> Addition cannot be made on assumption basis. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Sala…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 577/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why retraction of statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is not valid, the contention of ld. DR is that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is of great evidentiary value and same ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 576/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why retraction of statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is not valid, the contention of ld. DR is that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is of great evidentiary value and same ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 575/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why retraction of statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is not valid, the contention of ld. DR is that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is of great evidentiary value and same ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 574/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why retraction of statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is not valid, the contention of ld. DR is that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is of great evidentiary value and same ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 573/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why retraction of statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is not valid, the contention of ld. DR is that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is of great evidentiary value and same ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 572/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why retraction of statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is not valid, the contention of ld. DR is that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is of great evidentiary value and same ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 571/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why retraction of statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is not valid, the contention of ld. DR is that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is of great evidentiary value and same ca…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Peccadily Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 4029/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () - 2010-11 - 2009-10 - 2011-12

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…llant are therefore allowed.” 9. Insofar as addition made towards estimation of on-money on merit, the Ld.CIT(A), by following certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Uttamchand Jain reported in 320 ITR 554 (Bom) held that the statements relied upon by the AO including 16 ITAs 4030-4032 & 4029 & 4027/Mum/2016 director and employees of the group cannot be said to have provided sufficient evidence of on-money transactions in respect of the assessee company. Further, the loose paper on which the AO has placed heavy reliance also does not reflect t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4875/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP); (18) CIT v. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd [(2013) 35 toxmonn.com 470 (All); (19) CIT v. GP International Ltd [(2010) 186 Toxmon 229 (Pun &Hor); (20) CIT vs Arunananda Textiles Pvt Ltd [(2011) 15 Tox…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4874/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP); (18) CIT v. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd [(2013) 35 toxmonn.com 470 (All); (19) CIT v. GP International Ltd [(2010) 186 Toxmon 229 (Pun &Hor); (20) CIT vs Arunananda Textiles Pvt Ltd [(2011) 15 Tox…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4873/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…359) (Del) (12) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298) (Del). (13) CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd [(2011) 330 ITR 603 (Del) (PB 123-125); (14) CITv. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd [(2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.). (15) Uttam chand P. Jain 320 ITR 554 (Bom). (16) CIT v. Bhaval Synthetics [(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 83 (Raj)]; (17) CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 444(MP); (18) CIT v. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd [(2013) 35 toxmonn.com 470 (All); (19) CIT v. GP International Ltd [(2010) 186 Toxmon 229 (Pun &Hor); (20) CIT vs Arunananda Textiles Pvt Ltd [(2011) 15 Tox…

Shri Mujaffar Hussen, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal.’’

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 44ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 290/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2012-13 cuke Shri Mujaffar Hussain The ITO Vs. Prop: M.S. Steel, Labhi Bazar Ward- 7(2) Kureshion Ka Mohalla, P.O. Chaksu, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABPPH 8827 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…A.O. had made no independent enquiry and neither is there any confession by the creditors, who stood paid in the subsequent years through account payee cheque/s. Accordingly, the addition was directed to be deleted, relying on CIT vs. Uttam Chand Jain [2010] 320 ITR 554 (Bom) and CIT vs. Kiran Deepak Kukreja [2010] 190 Taxmann 393 (Bom). 4 Dy. CIT vs. Saraswati Developers 3. Before us, while the Revenue pleaded that the assessee had not been able to prove the impugned credits in terms of section 68 of the Act, relying on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); C…