CIT v. Bikaner Trading Co. Ltd.

78 ITR 12Supreme Court of India1970#21378 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 254Section 27Section 57Section 148Section 206

Issues it is cited on

right to receivesection 254commissioner (appeals)unexplained investmentsection 27section 25transfersection 144personcompanyindiadocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Bikaner Trading Co. Ltd.

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 704/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

…of the matter which needs to be considered is that the burden of proving that amount year of an was taxable because it was received in the account lies upon the department. This proposition has been reiterated in CIT V/s. Bikaner Trading Co.Ltd., reported in 78 ITR 12. Income of the assessee has to be received by the assessee an income tax is levied on income. For this purpose we may refer judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. M/s. 144 Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. reported in 46 ITR which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., V/s. CIT reported in 225 ITR 746. Supreme Court summed up the law as under: “…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. Smt Reena Sudhir Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel for the department), Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

…of the matter which needs to be considered is that the burden of proving that amount year of an was taxable because it was received in the account lies upon the department. This proposition has been reiterated in CIT V/s. Bikaner Trading Co.Ltd., reported in 78 ITR 12. Income of the assessee has to be received by the assessee an income tax is levied on income. For this purpose we may refer judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. M/s. 144 Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. reported in 46 ITR which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., V/s. CIT reported in 225 ITR 746. Supreme Court summed up the law as under: “…

Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel
Section 144

…he matter which needs to be considered is that the burden of proving that an amount was taxable because it was received in the year of account lies upon the Department. This proposition has been reiterated in CIT v. Bikaner Trading Co. Ltd. reported in [1970] 78 ITR 12 (SC). Income of the assessee has to be received by the assessee as income-tax is levied on income. For this purpose, we may refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. reported in [1962] 46 ITR 144 which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). The Supreme Court summe…

Growmore Leasing and Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 452/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel
Section 144

…he matter which needs to be considered is that the burden of proving that an amount was taxable because it was received in the year of account lies upon the Department. This proposition has been reiterated in CIT v. Bikaner Trading Co. Ltd. reported in [1970] 78 ITR 12 (SC). Income of the assessee has to be received by the assessee as income-tax is levied on income. For this purpose, we may refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. reported in [1962] 46 ITR 144 which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). The Supreme Court summe…