Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Padam Singh Chouhan [2009] 315 ITR 433 for the proposition that:— "There is no legal basis to assume, that to recognize the gift to be genuine, there should be any blood relationship, or any close relationship, between the donor and the donee. He further submitted that instances are not rare, when even strangers make gifts, out of very many considerations, including arising out of love, affection and sentiments.

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Kumar Kakar [2010] 324 ITR 231 held that when the donor and the donee are in blood relationship with each other, the donor does not need any particular occasion to make any gift.

P& H HC affirmed finding of ITAT that Invitation as placed in paper book is from son and daughter in law of the assessee. The A.O. has made whole of the addition in the hands of the assessee which is not justified. - Vijay Aggarwal 27-08-2015[P&H] [2016] 65 taxmann.com 16 (Punjab & Haryana)[Para 11]

Addition of Rs. 2,22,500/- on account of 89 liquor bottles. Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the finding of Tribunal that since the assessee was staying in a joint family consisting of his son and daughter-in-law and all the bottles cannot be said to have been purchased in one year and the existence of so many bottles can only point out to the fact that these must have been gathered over a period of time and, therefore, an addition of Rs. 1 lac would meet the ends of justice. –Vijay Aggarwal 27-08-2015[P&H] [2016] 65 taxmann.com 16 (Punjab & Haryana)[Para 13]

VDIS Cases on Sale of Jewellery for assesses : -Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (ITAT Spcl. Bench) on 25.07.08 ITA 404/2003 -Tejinder Singh HUF ITA 163/ASR/2003,However remanded by P&HHC on 08.02.2011 in 292 CTR352 to Special Bench for hearing on 04-04-11 -Kiran Deepak Kukreja 190 Taxmann 393(BOM HC) -Uttam Chand Jain 182 Taxmann 243(BOM HC) -Jagdish Mitter TA 268/2002 -Mohan Lal Aggarwal All HC ITA 136/2010 -Yogesh Chand Sharma ITA 131/Agra/2011 -Sanjay Mahipal ITA 452/DEC/2009 Note Transaction of Rishi Grover Prop Vishnu Jeweller held genuine by ITAT Amritsar. ITA 198 TO 202/ASR/2006 26.06.09. MA 55 TO 59/ASR/2010 of department dismissed by ITAT on 26.06.2012.

Assessee can not be asked to prove source of source or origin of origin Zafa Ahmed (All HC) 10.01.13 ITA 71/2002 Relying upon Anita Rice Mills 282 ITR 236

Gift made by relatives of the assessee to his minor children amounting to Rs. 371000. Held by Allahabad High Court in Radhey Shyam Bhatia [2015] 62 taxmann.com 123 (Allahabad) “ All the donors are in relation of the assessee and the gifts were made out of love and affection. The details of each donor's return was produced before the Assessing Officer, as all the donors were the income-tax assessees. When it is so then the creditworthiness is proved. The amount was reflected in the books of account. Thus, in the instant case, the identity of the donors has been proved. The transfer of the amount was voluntarily and the amount was transferred by way of entries, so the genuineness of the transaction has been proved. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the gifts appears genuine. Also by looking to the amount involved, we accept the gift as genuine. All the ingredients of valid gifts have been proved in the instant case…..”

Held by Karnatka High Court in Steel Centre (3.6.14) 51 TMC 127 ,where assessee was successful in getting confirmation letters from everyone merely because it could not produce some of creditors penalty could not be levied

Income of trust/educational institution even if not entitled to exemption can not be treated as undisclosed to the extent it is recorded in books of accounts.(Para 49) )- All India Personality Enhancement & Cultural Centre for Scholars Aipeccs Society [2015] 62 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi)

Where deposits are made in saving account of the assessee and assessee pleads that they represent sale proceeds of the business without producing sale and purchase bills of the business, the matter held to require investigation by AO -Bir Parkash Malhotra [2015] 61 taxmann.com 99 (Chandigarh - Trib.)

PAN/Voter Identity Card is a KYC norm, which does not apply to the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act. Hence where dealer of automobiles could not produce these evidences in respect of advance from customers which is converted to sale in two to three months, no addition can be made in respect of advances received from customers-DUTTA AUTOMOBILES (P) Ltd(kol Trib)Oct 5, 2015 (2015) 45 CCH 0100 KolTrib

Unreasoned Order of ITAT reducing addition for bogus purchases to 10% relying upon Coordinate Bench decision upheld by Gujrat High Court

Premkumar B. Rathi [2015] 59 taxmann.com 203 (Gujarat)

Unclaimed liabilities to creditors, even if fictitious and bogus, cannot be assessed u/s 41(1) in the absence of a write-back. The bogus credits can be assessed u/s 68 only in the year the credits were made and not in the year they are found to be not payable

Perfect Paradise Emporium Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

 Having held that the sundry creditors are not payable and fictitious, the next question that comes up for our consideration is the year in which the amount is taxable under what provisions of law either under Section 41(1) or 68 of the Act. We are required to examine whether this amount should be brought to tax in the year in which credit was made first time in the books of account or in the year in which these are found not payable. An identical issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara in Tax Appeal No. 588 of 2013, dated 04.02.2013, in which it was held that that even if the debt itself is found to be

Amount deposited in bank account can not presumed to have been taken from buyer of the property as excess consideration over sale deed. It is for vendor to prove the deposit

LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL Jul 17, 2015 (2015) 44 CCH 0387 AhdTrib
Assessee had purchased a piece of land for consideration which was mortgaged with the bank before the sale— Vendors paid Rs. 65 lacs to the bank and get the property released—AO held a belief that assessee must have paid unaccounted money over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed to the vendors which was ultimately deposited in bank and got released the land—AO had assumed that assessee has made unexplained investment in purchasing the property on the ground that vendors have got the property released from the bank and it was sold to the assessee and for same assessee had paid undisclosed sum—It was for the vendors to explain the source of what amount which they have discharged towards their loan liability and it cannot be presumed that it must be taken from the assessee in cash over and above the amounts stated in the sale deed—But AO had failed to make reference of any evidence which demonstrate that assessee has made unexplained investment—There was no direct co-relation between the discharge of loan liability vis-à-vis sale of plot—No evidence was with the AO to suggest that assessee had made unexplained investment in the purchase of the property—Revenue’s appeal dismissed

No addition u/s 68 can be made in the hands of person engaged in business of accommodation entries. Addition should be made in the hands of beneficiaries. Person providing accomodation entries can only be assessed to commission income.

ZENITH ESTATE LTD Jul 20, 2015 ITA No. 3419/Del/2014 (2015) 44 CCH 0396 DelTrib

Cash deposit couldn't be held as unexplained if such amount was surrendered during search and reflected in WT return

Joginder Paul [2015] 58 taxmann.com 289 (Chandigarh - Trib.) JANUARY  12, 2015 

Whether once assessee's father claimed that amount in said bank accounts belonged to him, it was for him to establish as to whom he had supplied goods and who had made payments; Tribunal was not justified in shifting burden of proof on revenue to prove transaction in name of assessee

Naval Kumar Chhabra [2015] 57 taxmann.com 306 (Karnataka) NOVEMBER  17, 2014

VDIS cases on sale of jewellery favoring assesee

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ITAT Delhi Special Bench on 25-07-2008 ITA/404/DEL/2003
Tehinder Singh HUF ITA /163/ASR/2003 (However Remanded by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 8-02-2011 in 292 CTR 352 to Special Bench for hearing on 4-04-2011)
Kiran Deepak Kukreja 190 Taxmann 393 Bombay High Court
Uttam Chand Jain 182 Taxmann 243 Bombay High Court
Jagdish Mitter ITA 268/2002
Mohan Lal Aggarwal Allahabad HC ITA 136/2010
Yogesh Chand Sharma ITA 131/Agra/2011
Sanjay Mahipal ITA 452/Delhi/2009

Transaction of Rishi Grover Prop Vishnu Jewellers held genuine by ITAT Amritsar ITA 198 to 202/ASR/2006 26-06-2009.MA 55 to 59/2010 of Department dismissed by ITAT on 26-06-2012

AIR Information Case onus does not completely shift to the assessee

Just because an AIR indicating the PAN of assessee, the onus does not shift completely to assessee. Provision of section 69 couldn't be applied if assessee claims that the entries in AIR represent sale transactions, and the AO fails to prove otherwise
[2012] 27 taxmann.com 321 (Mumbai - Trib.)
Threadneedle Investment Fund ICVC Asia Fund NOVEMBER 27, 2012

No addition can be made u/s 69A on th basis of statement recordrd at the back of assessee

Section 69A read with section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money - Opportunity of hearing - On basis of search conducted against third person and his statements recorded therein, assessment for assessee was reopened and additions were made under section 69A - Tribunal deleted additions on ground that Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice as assessee was not provided with statements and materials on basis of which additions were made - Whether though Tribunal's reasoning about denial of opportunity to assessee could not be faulted with, but in light of decision of Supreme Court in ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi [2011] 334 ITR 262/20 taxmann.com 733, matter was to be remitted back for fresh consideration by Assessing Officer who would proceed to make available necessary documents adverse to assessee - Held, yes [Para 5] [Matter remanded]

[2012] 27 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi)

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

PC Chemicals*

S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ.

IT APPEAL NOS. 281, 282, 285 TO 287 & 364 TO 366 OF 2012

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012