Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing R. K. Syal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 February, 1999

Asstt. Cit vs K.L. Jolly And Sons on 7 September, 2007

43. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had dealt with similar matter in the case of Shri Dalip Jolly in which case also the same donor had made the gift to another family member of this assessee. The facts and circumstances being similar in the two cases, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) extracted the entire discussion and his findings for deleting the addition in that case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 47 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Das'S Friends Builders (P) Ltd . vs Dy. Cit on 27 March, 2002

(10) The assessing officer while invoking the provisions of section 69, has not discharged his burden of proof, while making the addition. It is a settled law that even if the assessee's explanation is rejected, it is for the assessing officer to establish that the incomes have actually accrued/investments have been made before invoking these deeming provisions. For making the addition under section 69, the onus rests with the department which has not been discharged and as such, the addition is illegal. Cases relied on were (a) J.S. Parkar v. VV Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom (b) CIT v. Daya Chand Jain (1975) 98 ITR 280 (All), (c) Brijlal Rupchand v. Income Tax Officer (1975) 40 TTJ (Ind) 668; (d) Rajpal Singh v. ITO (1991) 39 TTJ (Del) 544; and (e) R.K. Syal v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Chd) 656, 687 2.9 The submissions of the assessee which are summarised above, were forwarded to the assessing officer who has submitted his comments vide letter dated 2-6-2000. The assessing officer has reiterated his findings in the assessment order. The assessing officer's comments were again communicated to the assessee, who has, inter alia, submitted the following counter- comments :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 37 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Subhash Chand Verma vs Cit And Anr. on 9 July, 2007

4. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) (for brevity, 'the Commissioner (Appeals)'), the additions so made by the assessing officer were deleted by holding that the assessee was aware of the names of the wife and children of the donor, his relatives and friends in Chandigarh. It was further held that the assessing officer did not bring on record any material to prove that the gift was not genuine and that the assessee had received the gift from a close friend on account of assessee's ill-health. The Commissioner (Appeals) also recorded his finding that the donor had the capacity to make the gift and, therefore, the genuineness of the gift could not be doubted. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of R.K. Syal v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Chd) 656 in (ITA No. 1165/Chd/1996), to support the conclusion that once the affidavit of the donor affirming the gift has been filed then the initial onus of the assessee to prove the gift stood discharged.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - A K Mittal - Full Document

M.S. Aggarwal vs Dy. Cit on 19 January, 2004

38. At this stage, we may refer to the contention of the learned senior Departmental Representative that there was no occasion or relationship between the donor and the donee for making the gifts in the instant case. In our considered view, genuineness of the gift transaction has to be considered on the basis of attendant facts and circumstances of the case like identity of the donor, financial capacity and factum of the transaction. Even though relationship between the donor and the donee as well as the occasion for the gift may be relevant circumstances for adjudication of the issue of genuineness of the transaction yet no inference can be drawn merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Relationship or occasion for the gift are not in any case essential elements as engrained in the definition of gift under the GT Act. The view taken by us is amply reinforced by the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.K. Syal v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Chd) 656 cited by the learned counsel. In this decision, the Chandigarh Bench held as under :
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Laxmikant Bhandari, Salem vs Department Of Income Tax

3. The assessee took up the matter in appeal and submitted before the first appellate authority that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the gift received by the assessee from Dr. D.P.Parwal as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. He stated that the photocopy of the letter issued by the donor Dr. D.P. Parwal confirming the gift, copy of letter issued by the Manager, State Bank of India, NRI Branch that the cheque was issued in favour of the assessee by debiting the account maintained by Dr. D.P. Parwal and Xerox copy of the gifted cheque were furnished before the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that the assessee was summoned to depose before the assessing authority regarding gift received by him and receipt of gift was accordingly confirmed. Elaborating his arguments, he stated that the 4 I.T.A. No.1136/Mds/2000 Assessing Officer was carried away by press report and though letters were issued to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Bombay and Jaipur for furnishing the copies of NRE accounts of Dr. D.P. Parwal, no efforts were made by the Assessing Officer to obtain the details before the completion of the assessment proceeding, which were getting time barred by 31.03.1999. He further argued that though a qualified medical practitioner is an authority in precious stone and has been in the business for the past 30 years ever since he settled in Hongkong as a permanent citizen. It was thus, argued that as the identity of the donor, financial capacity to gift have been established, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the gift appearing in the capital account as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. It was thus argued for deletion of the impugned addition. Reliance was placed on Chandigarh Bench of ITAT in the case of R.K. Syal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 66 ITJ 656 where the Tribunal has held that addition on account of unexplained gift is to be deleted where the Assessing Officer has accepted the fact that money came out of NRE account of the donors, and there was no material on record to show that the assessee has repaid the amount to the donee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narinder Kumar Sekhri vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 July, 2003

"On perusing the order of the AO, it appears that the addition of Rs. 1,10,590 was made because the assessee failed to produce the donor Sh. Balbir Singh for examination. It is also noticed that the AO presumed "that the assessee must have paid money for purchase of land and aginst this payment he received draft from Sh. Balbir Singh amounting to Rs. 1,10,590" but there is no evidence on record which could prove the aforesaid contentions of the AO It is an admitted fact that the assessee received the gifts from Sh. Balbir Singh through drafts of Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 40,590.25 credited on 9th Jan., 1991 and 18t March, 1991, respectively in the account of the assessee. In this regard the assessee filed two certificates from the Canara Bank, Noormahal, dt. 7th March, 1992, certifying that the aforesaid amount was the proceeds of foreign inward remittance received by way of drafts which clearly establishes that the assessee received the gift from Sh. Balbir Singh, N.R.I, who vide affidavit admitted that the gifts were given to the assessee and in the affidavit the source of the gift was also disclosed. When all the particulars were submitted and explained to the AO there was no justification in making the addition merely on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the donor who was residing abroad. The Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of R.K. Syal v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (CM) 656 (supra) held "that the assessee having produced affidavits of NR! donors affirming the gifts, addition amounts representing gifts could not be made only on the ground that there was no occasion or relationship for making gifts."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1