277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada

223 ITR 554High Court1997#10361 most cited

What is 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada authority for?

The Assessing Officer must be satisfied about the existence of books of account before invoking Section 68. If books of account are rejected, no additions can be made based on entries therein.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada · Section 68 · books of account · cash credit · rejection of books · unexplained income

Judgments citing 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…l have rightly held that as books of accounts were rejected in their entry, the Assessing Officer could not rely upon any entry in the books of account for making an addition of Rs. 1,98,298.00 . 2.2 Ld Judges of Gauhati High Court in Anand Ram Raitani Vs CIT 223 ITR 554 held that, "The assessing officer before invoking the power under section 68 of the Act must be satisfied that there are books of account maintained by the assessee and the cash credit is recorded in the said books of account and if the assessee fails to satisfy the assessing officer, the said sum so credited has to be charged to income tax as th…

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 806/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…aw.  CWT v Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705 (Raj)  CIT v Adinarayana Murthy K [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC)  CIT v Associated Cement and Steel Agencies [1984] 147 ITR 776 (Boni)  CWT v Jagdish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj)  CIT v Sobhagmal Mishrilal Semlavada [1997] 223 ITR 554 (MP)  CWT v Srivastava (J.K.) and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 183 (All )  CIT v Suresh Chandra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All)  CIT v Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)  Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO 12 DTR 534 (Ahd 'Tri)  Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110 TT…

Karnataka Housing Board vs. Addl.DIT

ITA 394/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…aw.  CWT v Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705 (Raj)  CIT v Adinarayana Murthy K [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC)  CIT v Associated Cement and Steel Agencies [1984] 147 ITR 776 (Boni)  CWT v Jagdish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj)  CIT v Sobhagmal Mishrilal Semlavada [1997] 223 ITR 554 (MP)  CWT v Srivastava (J.K.) and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 183 (All )  CIT v Suresh Chandra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All)  CIT v Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)  Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO 12 DTR 534 (Ahd 'Tri)  Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110 TT…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ent status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in this regard: CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad reported in [a]. 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices in…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ent status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in this regard: CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad reported in [a]. 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices in…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ent status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in this regard: CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad reported in [a]. 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices in…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ent status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in this regard: CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad reported in [a]. 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices in…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ent status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in this regard: CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad reported in [a]. 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices in…

M/S Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…ent status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in this regard: CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad reported in [a]. 277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada reported in [b]. 223 ITR 554 (MP); CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta reported in 173 ITR [c]. 407 (Raj); [d]. CIT v. Rohtas reported in 311 ITR 460 (P &H); Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT reported [e]. in 280 ITR 396 [All] CIT vs. Associated Cement & Steel Agencies [1984] [f]. 147 ITR 776 [Bom.], In all the above cited cases it has been held that where statutory notices in…

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Addl.DIT

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ibkarai, [1972] 84 ITR 705 (Raj) • CIT v Adinarayana Murthy K [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC) • CIT v Associated Cement and Steel Agencies [1984] 147 ITR 776 (Bom) • CWT v Jagdish Puri [1987] 163 ITR 458 (Raj) Page 7 of 27 • CIT v Sobhagmal Mishrilal Semlavada [1997] 223 ITR 554 (MP) • CWT v Srivastava (J.K.) and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 183 (All) • CIT v. Suresh Chandra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj) • Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)) • Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO, 12 DTR 534 (Ahd Tri) • Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110…

277 ITR 197 (All); CIT v. Sobhaglal Mishrilal Semlavada (223 ITR 554) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax