CIT v. Chuni Lal

212 ITR 206Reported decision1995#12404 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

surrender of incomesection 131(1a)section 271aacsection 292cchildsection 292section 29section 132asection 115bbsection 115baccommodation entrysection 133

Judgments citing CIT v. Chuni Lal

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 111/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…. CIT (2001) 119 taxman.com 0813, it was submitted that the explanation of the assessee must be accepted in absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [1995] 212 ITR 206 wherein it was held that the cash credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 2…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 110/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…. CIT (2001) 119 taxman.com 0813, it was submitted that the explanation of the assessee must be accepted in absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [1995] 212 ITR 206 wherein it was held that the cash credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 2…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 109/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…. CIT (2001) 119 taxman.com 0813, it was submitted that the explanation of the assessee must be accepted in absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [1995] 212 ITR 206 wherein it was held that the cash credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 2…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 108/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…. CIT (2001) 119 taxman.com 0813, it was submitted that the explanation of the assessee must be accepted in absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [1995] 212 ITR 206 wherein it was held that the cash credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 2…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 107/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…. CIT (2001) 119 taxman.com 0813, it was submitted that the explanation of the assessee must be accepted in absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [1995] 212 ITR 206 wherein it was held that the cash credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 2…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 106/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…. CIT (2001) 119 taxman.com 0813, it was submitted that the explanation of the assessee must be accepted in absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [1995] 212 ITR 206 wherein it was held that the cash credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 2…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 105/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…. CIT (2001) 119 taxman.com 0813, it was submitted that the explanation of the assessee must be accepted in absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [1995] 212 ITR 206 wherein it was held that the cash credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 2…

D.C.I.T. Cir-12, Kolkata vs. Usha Martin Telematics Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 838/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…jurisdictional ITAT in the case of EIH Associated Hotels Ltd ( 16 DTR 181), decision of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd ( 301 ITR 415) and decisions of Madras High Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Ltd ( 212 ITR 206 ) & California Software Co. Ltd. ( 118 TTJ 842-2008), I hold that the notional foreign exchange gain added amounting to Rs. 13,90,00,000/- on account of restatement of liability is not a ‘gain’ and it is only notional and hypothetical in nature. Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the above said addition of Rs.13,90,00,000/- ITA No. 838 & 81…

CIT v. Chuni Lal (212 ITR 206) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax