Chowdhury & Ors. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 12 (SC) 73 Distict Superintendent of Police, Chennai v. K. Inbasagaran

282 ITR 435Supreme Court of India#24205 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Chowdhury & Ors. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 12 (SC) 73 Distict Superintendent of Police, Chennai v. K. Inbasagaran

Nagnath Hanmantappa Jalkote, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/PUN/2015[BP]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2018

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 158B

…nted assets were found with the assessee during the search. This is noted by ITA T on page 49 of Paper Book. Thus, if the assessee has made so much investment in the bungalow, the ACB would not have dropped the proceedings. S.C. in the case of K. Inbasagaran [282 ITR 435] has held that the decision of the other authority should be followed. In that case, the issue was under Prevention of Corruption Act and the assessee had shown that ITO had accepted the investment as that made by his wife and accordingly, SC held that the assessee could not be punished under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This itself indicate…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…(SC) 72 2 Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 72 3 CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) 73 4 Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury & Ors. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 12 (SC) 73 Distict Superintendent of Police, Chennai v. K. Inbasagaran (2006) 5 73-74 282 ITR 435 (SC) 6 J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar & Ors. (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) 74-75 7 CIT v. Haji jan Mohd. Gaur (2004) 267 ITR 765 (Raj.) 75 8 Add. CIT v. karnail Singh V. Kaleran (1974) 94 ITR 505 (P&H) 75-76 9 V. Ramaswami Naidu v. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 341 (Mad) 76 10 CIT v. R.Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 ( Raj) 76-77 11 Prahlad maliram v. CIT (1987) 166…

Siddaraju, Mysore vs. Addl.Ci.T., Mysore

ITA 525/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234

…mitted that when the assessee has explained the source of deposit as the amount belongs to wife of the assessee then the addition is not justified. He has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Dy. Supt. Of Police, Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaram reported in 282 ITR 435 (SC). (ii) H K Bahadur Vs. Union of India 345 ITR 95 (Del) 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee failed to disclose and explain the source of the cash deposited in the bank account. Therefore the Assessing Officer is justified in making the addition. 15. Having c…