How many judgments cite CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi?

237 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 148, Section 250.

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

141 ITR 67High Court1983#370 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for additions of cash credits found solely in a bank passbook, as a passbook maintained by the bank is not considered a 'book of the assessee' for the purpose of this section, especially when the assessee does not maintain their own books of account.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi · 141 ITR 67 · section 68 · unexplained cash credit · bank passbook · books of account · assessee's books · applicability of Section 68 · no books of account · cash credit in bank account

Also reported as

11 Taxmann 5919 SOT 460

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 115BBE Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 2(12a)addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 unexplained cash credit section 68 change of opinion section 131 genuineness of the transaction section 145 limited scrutiny agricultural income section 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

Shri Harsh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 317/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…f the assessee maintained for the previous year, cannot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In this respect, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bhaichand N Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the High Court has held as under:- "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplied by the b…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ntries must be authentic else would fix the liability on the assessee. The pass book of the ITA Nos. 1469 & 1470/Del/2023 12 Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd. bank is not regarded as a valid account books under the section 68. It was laid in CIT, Poona v. B.H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 [Bom]. In case of section 68, the assessee is under the obligation to prove to following to avoid application of the deeming provision which has been considered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994)208 ITR 465 (Cal) which laid down the following criteria:- 1. Identity of his creditors; 2. Capacity of cr…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 856/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Ashok Chandrabhan V The Income Tax Officer, Khandave, S Ward-3(1), Nashik. At Post Village Pimpalnare, Dindori, Nashik, Maharashtra – 422004. Panl: Daqpk6919D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ganesh Budruk – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 23.02.2024.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,06,000Out Of The Total Addition Of Rs. 10,06,000 Made By The A.O. Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits In Bank Account During Demonetization Period Without Appreciating That The Said Cash Deposits Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave [A]

Section 250Section 68

…addition made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 68 towards alleged unexplained cash credits made in books of accounts, was apparently unjustified in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Bom)] and hence, the said addition may please be deleted. 5. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2 Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave [A] 2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment letter was filed. 2.1 We have heard ld.Departmental Representative…

Smt. Aruna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth N. Segu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144CSection 44ASection 68

…or deletion of the addition. Further, the ld. A.R. submitted that in identical facts and circumstances, the Jaipur bench of Tribunal in case of Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs ITO relied on the decision of Mumbai high court in case of CIT Vs Bhaichand N Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 wherein held that the bank passbook do not constitute books of account. He submitted that the relevant case law of Jaipur bench in the same order, the Jaipur bench referred to the case of Smt. Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 1 (2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: — '1 have carefully considered the rival s…

Vibrant Shelter Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 285/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Hirani first of all submitted that such account statement or bank records could not form subject matter of sec.68 addition as they are not in the nature of “books of account” as held in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Bhaichand Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.). And also that the assessee’s above stated bank statement also carries certain contra entries as well as re-deposits and vice-versa 4 ITA.No.285/PUN./2018 which have not been properly appreciated in the learned lower authorities orders. 5. The Revenue has drawn strong support from both the learned lower authorities action making the impug…

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…CER IN THE ITAT JALANDHAR (2019) 175 DTR 0121 (Asr)(Trib), (2019) 198 TTJ 0114 (Asr) A bank statement cannot be considered to be a 'book' maintained by assessee for any PY, as understood for purpose of s. 68. (3) CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi Bombay High Court 141 ITR 67 The pass book supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent's account in the books maintained by the bank. It is not as if the pass book is maintained by the bank as the agent of the constituent, nor can it be said that the pass book is maintained by the bank under the instructions of the constituent. Therefore, the pas…

Indira Gandhi, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer 29(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2530/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleindira Gandhi, Vs. Ito – 29(1)(5) 101,1Stflr,Tulip E & F 107,1St Floor, C-10, Chs Ltd, Mayureshpark, Pratyakshakarbhavan, Bhandup (West), Bkc, Mumbai-400078. Mumbai-400078. Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpg7601H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind Phadke.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…s appearing in the bank statement in the absence of books of accounts maintained by the AssesseeThus, the said addition of Rs. 19,21,187/- being contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Bhaichand NGandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom)" may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the "the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex- parte in violation of the principle of natural justiceThus, the order dated 10.05.2023 may be set aside and the matter may be restored back to the file of the lea…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Surat vs. M/S V Square Project, Surat

ITA 75/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.75/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S V Square Project Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat, 206, 2Nd Floor, Shanti Vs Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Arcade, 132Ft Ring Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Ahmedabad-380013 395001 Pan No. Aaifv 1955 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

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

…a Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F(SC) and judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 208 Taxman 35 (Guj); judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand N Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom). 7. The assessee further stated that once the amount of receipts was credited as “income”, there is no justification for making addition of the same amount under the provisions of section 68 otherwise it amounts to double taxation. To support such view, assessee relied the case law of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.…

Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya, Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot-364490 vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 168/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs. 14,32,782/- Being 50 Percent Of Agricultural Income Treating As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act In The Absence Of Books Of Accounts.

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

…8.Held: Bank statement is not considered as books of accounts, therefore, any sum found credited in bank passbook could not be treated as an unexplained cash credit under section 68.” 7.3. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) has held that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee cannot be regarded as a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. Accordingly, the Tribunal is justified in holding that a cash credit for the previous year shown in I.T.A No. 168/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 7 Chandubhai R. Kaqthiriya. Vs. CIT(A) the assesse…

Shri Jashandeep Singh Sidhu, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (3), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 11/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 144aSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…previous year, thus no addition under Sec. 68 of the I.T Act can be made in respect of a simpliciter deposit in the bank account. We thus respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom.) and being in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. ITAT, Mumbai in case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), thus are of the considered view that the addition of Rs.l 1,47,660/- made by the A.O under Sec.68 cannot be sustained, and as such is liable to be * vacated. We thus set aside the or…

Shri Jashandeep Singh Sidhu, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 310/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 144aSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Rahul Sharma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 245/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 245/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rahul Sharma Saraswati Floor Mill Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cccps3530F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Dolly Keshwani &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…t was not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same was liable to be vacated on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of her aforesaid contentions had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, as under: (i) .CIT Vs. Bhaichand Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) (ii). Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai) (iii). Satish Kumar Vs. ITO (2019) 198 TTJ 114 (Asr) (iv). Harjindar Singh Bal Vs. Deluty Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No.57/RPR/2020 dated 26.12.2022 It was, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the addition of Rs.13.79 lacs (supra) m…

Sambhaji Sattaji Sarpate, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nanded

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 800/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 800/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sambhaji Sattaji Sarpate, 803-9, Qnyaneshwar Nagar, Wadi Bo Gram Wadi Bu Tq, Nanded, Dist Nanded – 431602. Pan: Djbps7573D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nanded . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jha Revenue By : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053263618(1) Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’] For Assessment Year 2012-13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Shri Pratik JhaFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…and Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thurmanl Company Ltd V/S CIT(1988), 229ITR 283 (SC). Further, the Hon' ble NFAC has not given due consideration to the jurisdictional decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/S Bhaichand S. Gandi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (BOM) (HC), Mehul Vayas V/S (2017) 164ITD 262 Mumbai (Trib) (AY2008-09). Therefore, the NFAC has not followed the judgment which are covered to the case of the appellant, which are having jurisdictional in nature and as such the addition made of Rs 10,00,000/- u/s 68 of IT Act deserved to be deleted. 3. The assessee craves right to add, alter, ame…

Mr. Mohammed Hanif Mohammed Yusuf Dharwadkar, Hubli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 135/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veera Raghavan, D.R

Section 147Section 234ASection 68

…brought to tax by invoking the provisions Mohammed Hanif Mahommed Yusuf Dharwadkar, Hubli Page 10 of 18 of Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplie…

Chkor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 5625/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…me Holdings INC, therefore when all the informations were already available on record how the Assessing Officer can make the addition u/s.68 of the Act. In this regard he relied on the finding in the following case law: - i. CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) ii. Mehul V. Vyas v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai)] 21. Further, he submitted that remuneration from Salome Holdings INC was disclosed by the assessee till date. In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 41 of the Paper Book wherein assessee has submitted the statement of accounts for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2009 from M/s…

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 5624/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1995/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1994/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Clayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. v. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061 PAN: AXIPP2068E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA Department Represented by : Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. AR) Date of conclusion of Hearing : 30.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) CLAYTON CHARLES PINT…