5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A v. CIT

136 STC 292High Court#3766 most cited

What is 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A v. CIT authority for?

The court determined that oral admissions made during a search, without corroborating evidence, are insufficient to prove that fixed deposits belong to a particular individual.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Nirmala L.M.1'.717A v. CIT · 136 STC 292 · oral admission · search · FDR · evidence · onus of proof · income tax

Judgments citing 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A v. CIT

Sri. E. Vidyaranya (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1033/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Vidyaranya (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1032/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Vidyaranya (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1031/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1030/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1029/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1028/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1027/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1026/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1025/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1024/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

…RANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Ba…

Sri. Patil Kadpakal Garjan, Shimoga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimoga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 874/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…an estoppel against the assessee to challenge the assessment order. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhandari Metals & Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 136 STC 292 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that if the assessee makes a mistake in submitting a return to assess the tax before the assessing authority he has not estoppled or precluded by any law from preferring an appeal and showing to the appellate authority that the sales are in fact not exigible to tax. In case such contention is…