459 Ashok Kumar v. ITO (SC)/

211 CTR 86Supreme Court of India2007#15299 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

unexplained money section 69a section 69 section 142(1)section 144 opportunity of being heard section 148 section 147 section 14 person nfac india

Judgments citing 459 Ashok Kumar v. ITO (SC)/

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 1, Sikar

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

ITA 108/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…the assessee, onus was upon the assessee to explain nature and source of said cash deposit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnathambam (2007) 162 taxmann 459 Ashok Kumar vs. ITO (SC)/(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC) (2007) 211 CTR 86 (SC) wherein, it is held that the onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rest on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 461) (at pages 477 & 478) that appeal does not mean filing of memo of appeal but also pursing i…

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sikar

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

ITA 107/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Kishorbhai Chhaganbhai Andipara, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 199/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Income Tax Officer, Rajkot. As The Net Taxable Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Was Below The Basic Exemption Limit, The Assessee Has Not Filed The Return Of Income U/S. 139 Of The Act.

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148

…bank account of the assessee, onus was upon the assessee to explain nature and source of said cash deposit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K Chinnathambam (2007) 162 taxmann.com 459 (SC)/(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC)/(2007) 211 CTR 86 (SC) wherein, it is held that the onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rest on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks. As the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof, the A.O. is right in his action to treat the said cash deposit as unexplained. The Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved against the…

The Koradchery Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Socity Limited, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 521/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundharam, ITPFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

…ed that where the cash deposits are made in the bank account, the primary onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the same. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs K. Chinnathamban [2007| 162 Taxman 459 (SC)V[2007] 292 ITR 682 (SC)/[2007| 211 CTR 86 (SC) on the issue of Burden of Proof has held that "The onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rests on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks". In this case the appellant has made no efforts to make any compliance by producing the books of account of the Society to verify the above transaction or furnishing any con…

Dwaraka Prasad Bazari, Balotra vs. ITO, Balotra

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

ITA 82/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 272(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

…in bank account of the assessee, onus was upon the assessee to explain nature and source of said cash deposit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnathambam (2007) 162 taxmann 459 (SC)/(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC)/ (2007) 211 CTR 86 (SC) wherein, it is held that the onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rest on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks. As the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof, the AO is right in his action to treat the said cash deposit as unexplained. The Ground of appeal is dismissed.” Dwarka Prasad Bazari vs. I…

Jay Nanda Mataji Co.Op. Credit Society Lte, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 31(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 257/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jay Nanda Mataji Co-Operative Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Credit Society Limited, R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Shop No. 153/5/6, General Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Arunkumar Vaidya Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (East), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400065. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaaj 5397 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. G.C. Lalka, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 69A

…ase of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem vs K. Chinnathamban on 24 July, 2007, [2007] 162 Taxman Salem vs K. Chinnathamban on 24 July, 2007, [2007] 162 Taxman Salem vs K. Chinnathamban on 24 July, 2007, [2007] 162 Taxman 459 (SC)(20071 292 ITR 682 (SC)/(2007] 211 CTR 86 (SC), the 20071 292 ITR 682 (SC)/(2007] 211 CTR 86 (SC), the 20071 292 ITR 682 (SC)/(2007] 211 CTR 86 (SC), the hon'ble SC has stated in para 5 of its order, "In order to find out hon'ble SC has stated in para 5 of its order, "In order to find out hon'ble SC has stated in para 5 of its order, "In order to find out whether the assessee is the owner…