How many judgments cite CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad?

272 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (72 ITR 194), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 145(3), Section 142(1).

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

72 ITR 194Supreme Court of India1969#292 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 366,339 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 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 145(3)Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 106 section 66 creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof paper company section 31 source of source section 251(2)share capital and share premium rejection of books of account addition u/s 68 section 145(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

M/S.Perrorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 141/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

…plained cash credits with known sources of income of the assessee, there would be no alternative to treating them as income from other sources. 9.7 Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Deviprasad Viswanath Prasad (72 ITR 194) wherein it was held that when the assessee pleads that the impugned cash credits came out of suppressed profit, it is for him to prove that it is so. If these receipts are allowed by treating as business receipts, then the assessee will be entitled to set off of business expenditure against these receipts which is not permissible. The assessee'…

The Income Tax Officer, Jammu vs. Sh. Sudershan Kumar Sharma, Jammu

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 194/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Sr. D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Parveen Jain (Adv.)

Section 143(3)

…acceptability thereof. The facts of his case 4 ITO v. Sudershan Kumar Sharma being in his knowledge, the burden cannot be transferred to the AO, as does the ld. CIT(A). The Apex Court has per its’ decisions, as in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishvanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) abundantly clarified that where there is an unexplained credit, it is open to the Income-Tax Officer to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and no further burden lies on him to show that the income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the cash c…

Secl Industries Limited, Bathinda vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 798/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Mona Mohanti, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…explained cash-credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Assessing Officer to show that the income is from any particular source as held in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad 1969 72 ITR 194 (SC). 10 A.Y.2012-13 7. It is a fact in this case that the A.O. asked the assessee to explain the source of credits during the assessment proceedings and gave the assessee an opportunity to produce the Directors of these concerns to give evidence regarding their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions with the assessee. However…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…oted, is in the same manner as the law does not oblige to AO to prove or show the source of the cash available with the assessee where he finds him to have not satisfactorily explained the nature and source thereof (CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)). The provision is seemingly harsh, but that is not ground for not applying the same where it is otherwise applicable, being in fact in the nature of a statutory disallowance, so that it shall have effect where the conditions stated in the statute are met. It is the assessee who alone is respons…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Continental Construction Co, Jammu ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 27/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

…s with the addition u/s. 68 qua a secured loan s. Though the same could be made in principal, and we do not agree with the Id. CIT(A) that the same could not be in view of the assessee’s profit rate being estimated (CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC)), we find no basis for the said addition in the facts and circumstances of the case. True, the burden of proof u/s. 68 is on the assessee, which has not furnished any material in the assessment proceedings. However, it is not clear if the AO had in any of the notices u/s. 142(1) required the assessee to support its’ claim qua the said loan wi…

M/S. Continental Construction Co., Jammu vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Hqrs), Jammu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 38/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

Seeram Padmanabha Jewellers Private Limited, Eluru vs. ITO, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S Seeram Padmanabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.6A-2-6, Near Gandhi Statue Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aaqcs9501F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR

Section 68

…sted against the sales. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Ld,CIT(A) relied on the number of decisions as follows : (i) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad (72 ITR 194) (ii) Smt. Harshita Chordia Vs. ITO (298 ITR 249) (iii) ITAT Ahmedabad in ITO Vs. Sapna Land Developers (ITA No.2992/Ahd dated 28.12.2015 Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of impugned credits, therefore confirmed the entire additions. The Ld.CIT(A) placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex…

Shri Om Parkash Legal Heiar Smt Pushpa Verma, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

…ed addition u/s. 41(1) in case of rejection of accounts, as being in contradistinction to an addition u/s. 68, it was considered proper by the Bench to, and the assessee, accordingly, confronted with the decision in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). The ld. counsel, after seeking time, which was allowed, would respond by relying on the decision in CIT v. Aggarwal Engineering Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246 (P&H), to the effect that once the net profit rate is applied for estimating income, no separate addition on account of cash credit, or for payment of purchases, could be made. He, however, fa…

Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…lained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the same seek to provide statutory recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined in the Evidence Act.’ [emphasis, ours] The Apex Court in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1960] 72 ITR 194 (SC) clarified that once a cash credit remains unexplained, the AO can assess it as 10 Kiran Mahajan v. ITO his income and no further burden lies on him to show the source of the said credit. It was for the assessee to show that the source of the said cash credit, where so claimed, was his business income, for which – assessed separately, he may,…

Income Tax Officeer, Ward - 2(2), Jammu vs. M/S Nikhil Infra - Tech Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 373/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 373/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. R. L. Gupta (Adv.)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 361Section 68

…s with the addition u/s. 68 qua a secured loan/s. Though the same could be made in principal, and we do not agree with the ld. CIT(A) that the same could not be in view of the assessee’s profit rate being estimated (CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC)), we find no basis for the said addition in the facts and circumstances of the case. True, the burden of proof u/s. 68 is on the assessee, which has not furnished any material in the assessment proceedings. However, it is not clear if the AO had in any of the notices u/s. 142(1) required the assessee to support its’ claim qua the said loan wi…

Sh. Jasbir Singh Prop., Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 507/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 507/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 145Section 145(3)

…istration (over-head) expenditure. It also cannot be lost sight of that the assessee has unconfirmed/unverified unsecured loans for Rs. 31.67 lacs during the year. Reference in this regard be made to the decision in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). Under the circumstances, we decline interference. Though largely irrelevant in-as-much as reference to the same could not be possibly be made by the AO and, therefore, by the appellate authorities, we may in passing mention that the adopted rate is also in sync with that assessed for AY 2014-15, i.e., when considered at inclusive of the acce…

Gudla Sriranganadham, Srikakulam vs. The ITO, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 92/VIZ/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.92/Viz/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12) Sri Gudla Sriranganadham Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop : Sri Krishna Wines Ward-1 D.No.15-24, A.B.Road, Kotturu Srikakulam Srikakulam District [Pan : Ajhpg3664J] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Bangari, DRFor Respondent: 28.02.2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145

…cash credit as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon'ble Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah (120 ITR 294) and of the Apex Court in the case of Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad 72 ITR 194. The 7 Gudla Sriranganadham, Srikakulam Hon'ble Tribunal also referred to the observation of Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1 SC), "It cannot be said that the tax authorities were precluded from treating the amounts of the credit entries as income from undisclosed sources simply because the entries appear in…

Dy. C.I.T. 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Rajesh Makhijani, Kawardha (C.G.)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs Shital Verma, DR

Section 144Section 68

…11 the Assessing Officers with whom the creditors are assessed to tax. Therefore, he deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10. Ld D.R, relying on the decisions in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) and Grover Fabrics (India) P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 332 ITR 312 (P&H) submitted that there is no bar for addition u/s 68 and a trading addition for the same year. 11. We find that the assessee has furnished the details of the income tax returns alongwith PAN. It has also been informed that the lenders have given confir…

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Sai Shakti Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4266/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhsai Shakti Enterprises, Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Thane, First Floor, Vardhan Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Vs. Building, Midc, Wagle Industrial Mira Road, Thane-400604. Estate, Thane-401107 Pan: Aaxfs8506L (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer, Sai Shakti Enterprises, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Road No. 167, Thane (W) Mira Road,Thane. Pan: Aaxfs8506L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 40Section 44A

…o further disallowance can be made out of the expenses. The ld. CIT(A) took this view on the basis of decision in case of Teja Construction (supra) & Sahadev Pradhan (supra). The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194 wherein it was held that when the business income of the assessee had been estimated and determined, in such cases, the AO is precluded from adding any unexplained cash credit. The ld. CIT(A) further concluded that no amount which was subjected to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was outstanding as on 31.03.2005, thus, the same was not disallo…

Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

…roposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT reported in 50 ITR 1 and which has been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in case of CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath reported in 72 ITR 194 wherein it was held as under: Sh. Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota “ there is nothing in law which prevents the ITO in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained and the business income estimated by him under section 13 after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…ncome within the provision of Section 68 of the Act. A reference was made to the following case laws: " A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) " CIT Vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) " CIT Vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) " Yadu Hari Dalmia Vs CIT (1980) 126 ITR 48 (Del) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submission which has been incorporated in para 4 of the impugned order at page nos. 9 to 20 and is reproduced verbatim as under: “The Assesses derives Income from Business & Profession and is engaged…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…received by the assessee. It is well established by a set of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT(1963) 50 ITR 1(SC), Govindarajulu Mudaliar(A) v. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 807(SC), CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC), that the onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee is upon him. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT(1963) 49 ITR 112(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is an entry in the account books of the assessee which shows the receipt of a sum, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked what the source of…

Prashant Toraskar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5813/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Prashant Toraskar Asst. Cit-25(1), बनाम/ 101, 1St Floor, Sunflower Chs, Mumbai St. Francis Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt 5707 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun Ghia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.6.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 07.3.2013. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Is Explained By Way Of An Affidavit Dated 11.4.2016 By The Appellant As Caused Under The Bona Fide Impression Of Having Been Filed In Time; He Being Engaged In Identifying A Counsel For Advice & Representation Before The Tribunal And, Thus, In Filing The Appeal, Resulting In It Being

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni

Section 143(3)

…in the absence of an explanation no onus lay on the Revenue to show if the credit is from a particular source: 1) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); 2) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938(SC); 3) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); 4) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); 3 Prashant Toraskar vs. Asst. CIT 5) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and 6) A. Govindarjulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, t…

Vijay Jayantilal Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

ITA 192/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvijay Jayantlal Choksi, 3 Satyam Building, 1St Floor, Juhutara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 Pan:Aajpc 7858B ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha

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

…nt case, the assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove these conditions. To strengthen the view of the reliance is placed on the following decision. (a) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194(SC) (c) CIT vs. Ganapati Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) CIT vs. M.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumat Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) In view of the facts and circumstances and various court decisions on this issue, it is held that the appellant has failed to submit any documentary…

Udayraj N. Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2868/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Udayraj N. Pal Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 25B, New Kant Wadi 304, Piramal Chambers Vs. Perry Cross Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan - Alqpp2215D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran

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

…dings as well as during the remand proceedings, thus, it has failed to discharge its onus. To strengthen the view of the A.O., reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (a) Roshan Di Hat Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 72 ITR 194 (SC) (c) CIT Vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) Keeping in view the above facts, & circumstances, it is held that the assessee has failed to submit documentary evidences and produce the parties before…