CIT(A) in Unit Construction Co. Ltd. v. JCIT

260 ITR 189High Court2003#20182 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

unexplained money section 115bbe section 69a section 69 section 68 business document

Judgments citing CIT(A) in Unit Construction Co. Ltd. v. JCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Artex Textile Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5005/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…ash deposits during demonetization and then steep fall in cash deposited after December 2016. After observing the provisions of section 68 of the Act and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Unit Construction Co. Ltd. vs. JCTI 260 ITR 189, Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to offer satisfactory explanation with regard to the source of cash deposits made in the bank accounts during the demonetization period and it is upon the assessee to furnish an explanation about the nature and source of unexplained money, or other valuable article owned by the assessee to the…

Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, Surat vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 240/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…. AR submits that the assessee has made declaration in IDS-2016 of Rs. 50.00 lacs for A.Y. 2015-16 and therefore, the defects, omission if any, is covered by declaration made by assessee. The reliance placed by ld. CIT(A) in Unit Construction Co. Ltd. Vs JCIT 260 ITR 189 (Cal.) is 9 Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya Vs ITO misplaced. In the said case, it was held that it was not necessary to reject the books of account to make addition under Section 69 r.w.s. 69B. It was submitted that even without rejecting books of account, addition cannot be made. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer in the assess…

Shri Nasir Ahmed Rangshu, Anantnag vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 73/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…bove regard, it is seen that there is no such compulsion on the AO to reject the books of accounts before applying the provisions of Section 69. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Unit Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 189 (Cal.) that “for applying section 69 and 69B, it is not necessary that the books of account are to be rejected. The onus of proving the source of a sum of money is on the assessee. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show that the receipt was not income or that it was exempted from taxation under the law. In the absence of any…

Shri Lokesh Gadia, Jhabua vs. ACIT, Ratlam

ITA 854/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69B

…the case of ITO vs. Sundari Chemicals 124 ITYD 460. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bela Juneja vs. CIT (2012)20 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi) 339 ITR 144. Lokesh Gadia Hon’ble Calcutta High court in the case of Unit Construction Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2003) 260 ITR 189. Regarding contraction and infirmities in the statement of the sellers on which appellant has raised objection and submitted that no addition can be made when there are contradictions in the statements of the sellers. It is observed that appellant has not understood the statement of the sellers. In the statement which was recorded by the ADIT u/s…