How many judgments cite CIT v. Dayachand Jain Vaidya?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dayachand Jain Vaidya (98 ITR 280), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Dayachand Jain Vaidya come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 68, Section 115BBE.

CIT v. Dayachand Jain Vaidya

98 ITR 280High Court1975#2436 most cited

What is CIT v. Dayachand Jain Vaidya authority for?

When an assessee furnishes a particular explanation and adduces evidence in support thereof, the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to falsify the said material or bring new material on record. Mere rejection of a good explanation does not convert good proof into no proof, making additions based on unsubstantiated grounds unsustainable if the AO fails to discharge this onus.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dayachand Jain Vaidya · 98 ITR 280 · Allahabad High Court · onus of proof · shifting of onus · assessee explanation · evidence · rejection of explanation · assessment procedure · unexplained additions · section 68 · section 142 · section 143

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 144B Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

buyback of shares section 269t onus of proof section 2(43)section 269s section 271e section 158bb section 2(31)section 269ss icds dumb documents section 159

Judgments citing CIT v. Dayachand Jain Vaidya

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…ng the submission of the assessee in\nright perspective, without contradicting the same and making the due\ninquiry, rejected the same on surmises and conjecture basis by holding the\nsame as afterthought. In the case of ITO vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidya\n(1975) 98 ITR 280 the Allahabad High Court held that “When a\nparticular explanation furnished by the assessee and evidence in support\nthereof is adduced, the onus shifts on the Assessing Officer to falsify the\nsaid material or bring new material on record. Mere rejection of good\nexplanation does not convert good proof into no proof".\nThe share of the assessee…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1,, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATISGARH DISTILLERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…by the assessee. This onus has not been discharged. Accordingly no addition of undisclosed income could be made on the basis of such a document. Such a view has also been entertained by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Dayachand Jain Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280 (All). The addition so made, therefore, is directed to be deleted.” Stanamsingh Chhabra vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976: None of the loose papers seized are in the hand writing of the assessee. There is some jotting by pencil in some coded form on the loose papers made by the surveyed person or some other person. Moreover, no entries are s…

EAPPEN PAPPACHAN,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 746/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Eappen Pappachan, Moonayathu The Income Tax Officer, Vadakkathil, Ward – III, Chagankulagara, Alappuzha. Vavvakkavu P.O., Vs. Kollam – 690 528. PAN: BHBPP8560K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Surendranath Rao, CA Revenue by : Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 02-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of…

ANBHAO PARKASH S/O DARSHAN LAL, VILLAGE VEERE WALA KALAN, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT, JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD 1, FARIDKAOT, FARIDKOT

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

ITA 630/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250oSection 69

…ld that when the source of the impugned addition made u/s 69 of the Act has been proved, it depicts that the assessee has discharged his onus and accordingly, addition made u/s 69 of the Act deserves to be deleted: 27. ITO vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280 Allahabad High Court 12 I.T.A. No.630/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “When a particular explanation furnished by the assessee and evidence in support thereof is adduced, the onus shifts on the Assessing Officer to falsify the said material or bring new material on record. Mere rejection of good explanation does not convert good proof into n…

SUJATA MAKHAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 104/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…. New Gramophone House as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India. I.T.A. No.: 104/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sujata Makhal. 7. FOR THAT as has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, in the case of ITO vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280, mere rejection of good explanation does not convert good proof into no proof. 8. FOR THAT opportunity of cross-examination has not been conferred upon the appellant whereby the same is an integral part of the assessment as has been decided in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai v. Vaman International Private Limited as has been…

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…components of s. 4, viz., the taxable event, the person\nchargeable, the assessment year in which charge is leviable and the total income are\nabsent in the case. (page-25)\nEntertained by the hon’ble Allahabad high court in CIT vs Dayachandjainvaidya (1975)\n98 ITR 280 (ALL). The addition so made, therefore, is directed to be deleted.\n(page-26)\n4.5Also refer CIT V/s Dayachand Jain Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280(All)\n4.6 Jagdamba Rice Millsvs. ACIT (2000) 67 TTJ (CHD) 838\nHeld that document seized during search not being clear as to whether items were\npayments or receipts or some other calculations, no addition co…

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE vs. SHANTI OIL INDUSTRIES, JUNNAR PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…rovide credible data and information to file the tax returns. 8 Shanti Oil Industries 8.3.1 The appellant has also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT: i) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ITO Vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidya reported in [1975] 98 ITR 280 has held that "When a particular explanation furnished by the assessee and evidence in support thereof is adduced, the onus shift of the AO to falsify the said material or bring new material on record. Mere rejection of good explanation does not convert good proof into no proof." ii) Hon'ble ITAT Indore in the case of HimanshuBotadara, HUF VS. IT…