1. Tirath Ram Gupta v. CIT P&H High Court

177 Taxmann 294High Court2009#10278 most cited

What is 1. Tirath Ram Gupta v. CIT P&H High Court authority for?

Unexplained investments brought to tax by the AO must be sustained if the assessee fails to prove the source of investment.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tirath Ram Gupta v. CIT · unexplained investment · source of investment · addition to income · AY 2010-11 · AO · CIT(A) · relatives receipts · 133A

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 269SSSection 269T

Issues it is cited on

audi alteram partemviolation of natural justicepenny stockentry operatoraccommodation entryundisclosed incomeappeal before the tribunalpersoncompanyindiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing 1. Tirath Ram Gupta v. CIT P&H High Court

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1131 & 1132/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 to 2018-19 Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada ACIT, 812, Kasba Peth, Near Kamla Vs. Central Circle-1(1), Nehru Hospital, Pune – 411011 Pune PAN: AHPPB9435N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V Narendra Sharma, Advocate Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 16-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 06-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed aga…

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1131/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1131 & 1132/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 to 2018-19 Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada ACIT, 812, Kasba Peth, Near Kamla Vs. Central Circle-1(1), Nehru Hospital, Pune – 411011 Pune PAN: AHPPB9435N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V Narendra Sharma, Advocate Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 16-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 06-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed aga…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, ITO, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind CHS. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. PAN NO. AARPD 9399 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CA Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date of pronouncement : 07/02/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against a com…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, ITO, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind CHS. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. PAN NO. AARPD 9399 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CA Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date of pronouncement : 07/02/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against a com…

Sudhir Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1741/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAGPJ6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: ADRPJ4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (HUF), ITO, 158, Rajdhani…

Daya Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1740/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAGPJ6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: ADRPJ4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (HUF), ITO, 158, Rajdhani…

Sushma Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAGPJ6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: ADRPJ4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (HUF), ITO, 158, Rajdhani…

Meenu Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1738/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAGPJ6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: ADRPJ4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (HUF), ITO, 158, Rajdhani…

Ramakrishna Kanderi, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chittoor

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 783/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 148

…ities below and also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. Ummer Bava vs. CIT reported in (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 1 (S.C) and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Tirath Ram Gupta vs. CIT reported in (2009) 177 Taxmann 294 (P&H). He submitted that the assessee could not prove the source of investment during the A.Y 2010-11, due to which the AO has Page 4 of 7 ITA No 783 of 2019 Ramakrishna Kanderi Chittoor. brought the unexplained investment to tax during the A.Y 2010- 11 and therefore, both the additions have to be sustained. 7. Having regard to the rival c…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1569/DEL/2012 [A.Y 2008-09] Shri Puneet Jain Vs. The Income tax Officer S/o Shri Praveen Kumar Jain Ward 2(1) Prop. M/s Paras Paper Center Meerut 517/2, Mahavirji Nagar, Meerut PAN: AANPJ 4604 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampat, Adv Shri V. Raja Kumar, Adv Department By : Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27 .09.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, With thi…

1. Tirath Ram Gupta v. CIT P&H High Court (177 Taxmann 294) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax