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.

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 194)

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 455/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 153A

…tion cannot be accepted under the law. The contention of the Id. AO is not supported by any reliable evidence but merely suspicion. 10. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein it is held 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". In the present case, the assessee has already offered the receipts for taxation and hence, the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again. 11. It is…

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

…hold that these assets represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. There is no presumption in favor of business income. Onus to prove is on assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968) has held as under- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer 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 of the Income-tax Act, after rejecting the books of account of the asses…

Nishtha Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1160/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…208 ITR 463 (Calcutta), CIT v Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. 134 Taxman 29 (Calcutta), CIT v Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 30 Taxmann.com 292 (Del), A. Govindrajulu Mudaliar v CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807, CIT v Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) and CIT v Independent Media (P.) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 276 (Delhi) for making addition under section 68 of the Act besides, relying upon other judicial I.T.A. No.: 1160/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishtha Vincom Pvt. Ltd. pronouncements for disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by giving its…

Sehgal Path Lab, Andheri West vs. ITO, Circle 17(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4830/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrisehgal Path Lab Vs. Ito, Circle 17(1) 103, Yashodhan It Sehgal Circle 17(1), Path Lab, Azad Nagar, S.O, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abxfs0461M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed –CA &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sehgal Path Lab Vs. ITO, Circle 17(1) 103, Yashodhan IT Sehgal Circle 17(1), Path Lab, Azad Nagar, S.O, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:ABXFS0461M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Piyush Chhajed –CA & Ayush Chhajed-CA Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR Date of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the a…

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…e assets and in the event of failure to prove these, the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and not from some other source. But it…

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…e assets and in the event of failure to prove these, the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and not from some other source. But it…

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…e assets and in the event of failure to prove these, the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and not from some other source. But it…

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur, Jodhpur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…e assets and in the event of failure to prove these, the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and not from some other source. But it…

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…e assets and in the event of failure to prove these, the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and not from some other source. But it…

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 56/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…........ (13) ADDITION UNDER SECTION BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS:-68 OF THE MENT ACT AFTER REJECTION OF The issue in appeal is specifically held in favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…rrendered income remains unexplained, the only justifiable presumption is that it arises from existing known business activity-including unaccounted turnover or financial receipts such as interest. Judicial Support: CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1972) 72 ITR 194 (SC): Where no explanation is offered for cash credits, it is open to the AO to treat them as income from undisclosed sources. CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC): Mere disclosure is insufficient; the assessee must substantiate the source with evidence. Failing which, the department is justified in making an addition. Accordingly, the Rev…

Globus Housing, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO.872/Ind/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15 Globus Housing, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 176, Zone-II, NFAC, Vs. MP Nagar, Delhi Bhopal (PAN: AAFFG6810K) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by S/Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Un…

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 2447/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

Section 115BSection 68

…ITANo.2447/Del/2024 SATISH KUMAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 INCOME TAX OFFICER, Room No.217, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by Revenue by सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement on SATISH KUMAR X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. PAN No.AНЕРК4309В Shri Pramod Jain, CA & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR 19.08.2025 26.…

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 cuke Radhakishan Beniwal DCIT Vs. Ward No. 14, Behind Kishan Hostel Cirecle-01, Krishim Mandi Road, Nagarpalika Jaipur Degana Goredi Chancha Nagaur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AGMPB3851A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :…

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 cuke Radhakishan Beniwal DCIT Vs. Ward No. 14, Behind Kishan Hostel Cirecle-01, Krishim Mandi Road, Nagarpalika Jaipur Degana Goredi Chancha Nagaur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AGMPB3851A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :…

Ashish Bhargava, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…es and the profits have been derived which were offered for tax, thus taxing the same income twice is against the settled law. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- 1) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC)held 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." 26 Ashish Bhargava, Jaipur. 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." 2) Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in t…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1074/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Rajeshkumar Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad, Rameshchandra Shah Vs. 202, Nirja Apartment, B/h. Navrangpura P.O., Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AKOPS9777Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Pa…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…Therefore, all the additions, as mentioned above, made by the AO may be confirmed. The ld.DR in support of its contentions relied on the following judgments: i) Namdev Arora Vs. CIT, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 124 (P&H); ii) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath, (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC); iii) CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P.Ltd., (2013) 30 taxmann.com 292(Del) iv) A. Govindarajulu Mudalia Vs. CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC); v) Rajmeet Singh Vs. ITO, (2024) 160 taxmann.ocom 83 (Jhark) vi) CIT Vs. Independent Media P.Ltd., (2012) 25 taxmann.com 276 (Del); vii) Shri Arif Vs. ACIT, ITA No.976/Bang/2022 (ITAT-Bang) order dated…

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…Therefore, all the additions, as mentioned above, made by the AO may be confirmed. The ld.DR in support of its contentions relied on the following judgments: i) Namdev Arora Vs. CIT, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 124 (P&H); ii) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath, (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC); iii) CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P.Ltd., (2013) 30 taxmann.com 292(Del) iv) A. Govindarajulu Mudalia Vs. CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC); v) Rajmeet Singh Vs. ITO, (2024) 160 taxmann.ocom 83 (Jhark) vi) CIT Vs. Independent Media P.Ltd., (2012) 25 taxmann.com 276 (Del); vii) Shri Arif Vs. ACIT, ITA No.976/Bang/2022 (ITAT-Bang) order dated…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…4] [I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023] (xii) Kailash Swaroop Agarwal vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 175 / 2012 in order dated 03/10/2017 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (xiii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) (xiv) Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) (xv) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) 12 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. (xvi) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xvii) Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), Mum…

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Nishtha Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Kolkata

Sehgal Path Lab, Andheri West vs. ITO, Circle 17(1), Kautilya Bhavan

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur, Jodhpur

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

Globus Housing, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar, New Delhi

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

Ashish Bhargava, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan