CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

72 ITR 194Supreme Court of India1969#290 most cited

What is CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad authority for?

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

272

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad · 72 ITR 194 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · estimated assessment · source of income · AO burden of proof · assessee's burden · income finalized on estimation · addition u/s 68

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 145(3)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 106section 66creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofpaper companysection 31source of sourcesection 251(2)share capital and share premiumrejection of books of accountaddition u/s 68section 145(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

ITA 369/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

…ice ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s. 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed". The assessee has already offered the sales for taxation hence the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again. Similiar decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Agson Glo…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/44/2025HC Rajasthan24 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68

…the observations were made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia, holding that it was not necessary for the Revenue to locate the exact source. This principle was reiterated in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the contention that the Assessing Officer should indicate the source of income before it was taxable, was described as an incorrect legal position. Thus when there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it was income of the assessee and no further burden lies on him to show…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI PAWAN GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/45/2025HC Rajasthan24 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68

…the observations were made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia, holding that it was not necessary for the Revenue to locate the exact source. This principle was reiterated in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the contention that the Assessing Officer should indicate the source of income before it was taxable, was described as an incorrect legal position. Thus when there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it was income of the assessee and no further burden lies on him to show…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/46/2025HC Rajasthan24 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68

…the observations were made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia, holding that it was not necessary for the Revenue to locate the exact source. This principle was reiterated in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the contention that the Assessing Officer should indicate the source of income before it was taxable, was described as an incorrect legal position. Thus when there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it was income of the assessee and no further burden lies on him to show…

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nDR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 624/RJT/2025\n Assessment Year: (2017-18)\n(Physical Hearing)\nGrenic Tiles Pvt. Ltd.,\nDC/ Asstt. Commissioner of\nS. No. 81, 8-A National Highway At\nबनाम /\nIncome-tax, Circle – 1(1),\nJambudiya, S. O. Khijadiya,\nVs.\n5th Floor, Income Tax Office,\nWankaner (Guj) – 363621\nAayakar Bhavan, Vatika Race\nCourse, Ring Road, Rajkot-360001\n(Assessee)\n(/Respondent)\nस्थायीलेखासं…

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 624/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nDR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 624/RJT/2025\n Assessment Year: (2017-18)\n(Physical Hearing)\nGrenic Tiles Pvt. Ltd.,\nDC/ Asstt. Commissioner of\nS. No. 81, 8-A National Highway At\nबनाम /\nIncome-tax, Circle – 1(1),\nJambudiya, S. O. Khijadiya,\nVs.\n5th Floor, Income Tax Office,\nWankaner (Guj) – 363621\nAayakar Bhavan, Vatika Race\nCourse, Ring Road, Rajkot-360001\n(Assessee)\n(/Respondent)\nस्थायीलेखासं…

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

ITA 2041/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

…inconsistencies in the opening and closing balances for preceding and succeeding years further weakened the explanation. Placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 and CIT v. P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, the Assessing Officer held that the burden was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the sums credited. Since the explanation was not found satisfactory, the cash deposits of Rs. 19,00,000 were treated as unexplained income and added to the total income of the assessee.…

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, CHIKKABALLAPUR

ITA 2040/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheettal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

…inconsistencies in the opening and closing balances for preceding and succeeding years further weakened the explanation. Placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 and CIT v. P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, the Assessing Officer held that the burden was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the sums credited. Since the explanation was not found satisfactory, the cash deposits of Rs. 19,00,000 were treated as unexplained income and added to the total income of the assessee.…

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR ,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

ITA 2039/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: 03.02.2026
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

…inconsistencies in the opening and closing balances for preceding and succeeding years further weakened the explanation. Placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 and CIT v. P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, the Assessing Officer held that the burden was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the sums credited. Since the explanation was not found satisfactory, the cash deposits of Rs. 19,00,000 were treated as unexplained income and added to the total income of the assessee.…

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…rior to demonetization period, the impugned addition made by the AO on account of the same was liable to be deleted. Finally, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that even if a cash credit represented income, it was always open to the assessee to show that it was income from a source which had already been taxed. Since, the assessee had already offered the amount for taxation, therefore, there could not be any question of taxing it again. The ld. AR also invited o…

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 363/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCH5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR राज"कीओरसे/Revenue by : Shri S…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT, MEERUT vs. DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARATI CHARITABLE TRUST, DEHRADUN

ITA 2553/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…r M. Sanghvi Vs. ITO [2018] 90 taxmann.com 386 (Gujarat) iii. J.J. Development (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Kolkata [2018] 100 taxmann.com 102 (SC) iv. Konark Structural Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.co 255 (SC) v. CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) vii. CIT Vs. Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 217 P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 2552 & 2553/Del/2024 Dr. JagatNarainSubharti Charitable Trust (AYs: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Delhi) viii. CIT Vs. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi) ix. PCIT, New…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT , INCOME TAX OFFICE, MEERUT vs. DR. JAGAR NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST, DEHRADUN

ITA 2552/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…r M. Sanghvi Vs. ITO [2018] 90 taxmann.com 386 (Gujarat) iii. J.J. Development (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Kolkata [2018] 100 taxmann.com 102 (SC) iv. Konark Structural Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.co 255 (SC) v. CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) vii. CIT Vs. Nova Promoters &Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 217 P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 2552 & 2553/Del/2024 Dr. JagatNarainSubharti Charitable Trust (AYs: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Delhi) viii. CIT Vs. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi) ix. PCIT, New…

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gurdas Mal Arora v. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. PAN:AFEPM4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal…

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“D” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nΙ.Τ.Α. No.546/Mum/2025\nA.Y: 2017-18\nRakesh Jain\nVs\nDCIT - 26(1)\nShop No. 29, 2nd Floor,\nKautilya Bhavan,\n126-128, Sheikh Menon\nBandra, Mumbai\nSt., Trimurti Estate,\nKalbadevi, Mumbai\nPAN – AAΙΡJ7359P\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by | Shri Vimal Punmiya\nRevenue by || Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n17.09.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n04.12.2025\nORDER\nPer: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:\nThe present appeal has been fi…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AMD TRUST CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST , CHENNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1471/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

…ice ultimately credited to profit 8: loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from as source, which has already been taxed." The assessee has already offered the sales for taxation hence the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again." 14. The ld. DR, has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyde…

M/S. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1249/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

…ice ultimately credited to profit 8: loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from as source, which has already been taxed." The assessee has already offered the sales for taxation hence the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again." 14. The ld. DR, has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyde…

BK GARDEN FRESH PRIVATE LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the two issues as discussed above and allowed on the third issue for statistical purposes

ITA 545/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bk Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant 12, Ramlochan Mullick Street, Kol-700007. [Pan: Aafcb6953P] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri N. S. Saini, Ar & Satyaki Mondal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,31,194/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Specifically On The Ground Of Large Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Period. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued & After Considering The Submissions & Details Submitted By The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Assessed Total Income At Rs.90,47,322/- After Making The Following Additions: Bk Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd 1. Bad Debts Rs.90,006/- 2. Cash Discount Rs.95,622/- 3. Charity & Donation Rs.50,500/- 4. Disallowed On Cash Deposits At Rs.77,80,000/- U/S 69A

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 69A

…the transactions was duly reflected in the profit and loss account and the same was offered to tax, hence, the provisions of section 69A will not apply in this case. The ld. AR has cited the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) 2. Shree Sanad Textiles Industries vs. DCIT in 3. CIT vs. Smt. Harshil Chordia vs. ITO ( 2008) 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan HC) 4.1 The ld. AR further submits that so far the issue of bad debts of Rs.90,006/- u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is concerned, the Assessing Officer 2 BK Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd disallowed the same on the ground that no convincin…

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

…3 (SC), (v) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC), (vi) Shankar Industries vs. CIT, ITA No.60/SRT/2025/AY 2013-14 Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta 114 ITR 689, (vii) Shreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112, (viii) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194 (SC), (ix) Bomin P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 160 ITR 477 (Guj.), (x) ITO vs. Diza Holdings (P.) Ltd., 255 ITR 573 (Ker.) and (xi) Smt Iva Gogoi vs. CIT, 254 ITR 576 (Gau.). The AO made total additions/disallowances of Rs.28,70,370/-, which is mentioned at para (i) to (ix) of the assessment order. He assessed the total income of Rs.48,50,300/- against the ret…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 472/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 153A

…rice ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added uls 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) Ihat "t is for the assessee to prove that even the cash credit represents comencome from as source, which has already been loved the assessee has already offered the soles for taxation and hence, the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be fared again is stated that neither book of account nor the audited financials submi…

Showing 1–20 of 272 · Page 1 of 14

...
CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (72 ITR 194) — Cited in 272 Judgments | BharatTax