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 366,459 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

Shri Ram Babulal Yadav, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 402/NAG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.402/Nag/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Ram Babulal Yadav, The Income Tax Officer, Shatayu Hospital Complx, Vs. Ward-1(4), Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aanpy 6192 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Nagpur’S Dated 03.11.2016 In Case No.Cit(A)-1/289/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…has failed to establish that these deposits are referable to his business income. Rather, they are stated to have been received from family members and friends by the appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1069] 72 ITR 194 observed that where there is an unexplained credit, it is open to the AO to hold that it is income of the assessee, and no further burdn lies on the AO to show that the income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represents income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed.…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Chandra Surana, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Auditor. Any Stock Register Whatsoever Was Not Furnished During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings To Verify The Quantitative Sale Made During The Year Whether The Item Shown By The Assessee As Sold Was Actually In Stock Of The Assessee Or Not & Quantity & Value Of The Sale Shown Remains Unverified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Vital Fact.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…rice 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". Thus the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid case laws is that when…

Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer WD.-2(2)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 185/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…amodar Jajoo & Jashodadevi R. Jajoo Development Private Limited in ITA NO. 120 of 2012 dated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income-Tax Officer to indicate the source of the income before the income could be held taxable and unless he did so, the assessee was entitled to succeed. That is not, in our judgment, the correct legal position. Where there is an explained…

Damodar Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 184/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…amodar Jajoo & Jashodadevi R. Jajoo Development Private Limited in ITA NO. 120 of 2012 dated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income-Tax Officer to indicate the source of the income before the income could be held taxable and unless he did so, the assessee was entitled to succeed. That is not, in our judgment, the correct legal position. Where there is an explained…

Damodar Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD.2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 183/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…amodar Jajoo & Jashodadevi R. Jajoo Development Private Limited in ITA NO. 120 of 2012 dated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income-Tax Officer to indicate the source of the income before the income could be held taxable and unless he did so, the assessee was entitled to succeed. That is not, in our judgment, the correct legal position. Where there is an explained…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 221/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 220/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 219/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 217/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 216/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

Smt. Mayuri P. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 92/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 92/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Smt. Mayuri P. Patel, Income Tax Officer, Prof. Of Ar Chem Industries 15, Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Neelkanth Society, Vadodara. B/H Sama Road, Vadodara-390002. Pan: Aqhpp7772K

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, with Shri Rajesh, Sharma, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 131(1)Section 68

…ous year and if there is no explanation or if the explanation is unsatisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the sum so credited is to be treated as income and brought to tax according. 4.8 In the case of CIT Vs Dew Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194. the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the onus of proving the genuineness of cash credit is upon the assessee. 5. Apart from the above, AR was requested to produce audited books of account of next AY 2013-14 so as to see the status of unsecured loan. AR stated that appellant has closed its business. Upon this when asked AR as to how the appel…

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR. Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 172/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Central Circle-1, 197, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ABUPK 2500 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/k…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 165/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Income Tax Officer, Shri Raj Kumar Nowal, Vs. Ward 1(2), Shop No. 3, Partanio Ka Rasta, Jaipur. Johari Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AALPN 6069 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkf…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iv. Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) vi. Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 taxmann.com taxmann.com vii. CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005]…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iv. Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) vi. Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 196 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 Taxman 136/[2010] 8 taxmann.com taxmann.com vii. CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005] 273 ITR 326/143 Taxman 373 CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal [2005]…

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…42 taxmann.com 349 (P&H) 3. CIT Vs. Anandha Metal Corporation [2006] 152 taxman.com 300 [Mad] 17. He further submitted that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) is not applicable in the present facts of the case as per his written synopsis. 18. He further submitted on merits of the case, strongly relied on the documents submitted by the lower authorities which was Page 21 of 34 also placed before us, and further submitted that the confirmations for more than Rs.1 lakh as required by the AO were file…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Subodh Singhania, Raipur

ITA 135/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…count of impugned advance from customers & M/s Tirthyatra Investment & Properties Ltd which is against the ratio of the settled law of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT(SC) 50 ITR 1 (H) CIT Vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (SC) 72 ITR 194 and (iii) Ratanchand Dipchand Vs CIT (MP) 38 ITR 188?" 6. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,50,000/- & Rs. 2,10,00,000/- made by the AO on account of impugned advance from customers & M/s Tirthyatra Investment & Properties Ltd, thereby not consideri…

Samunder Saree Centre, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

ITA 7045/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasamunder Saree Centre Vs. Acit, C/O Matta & Associates Circle-47(1), 877, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-Ii, New Delhi Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura Delhi-110034 Pan : Abkfs2039J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…re accepted and when they were duly offered for taxation then the cash sale cannot be considered to be unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. In this regard, he relied of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 1969 72 ITR 194 SC and contended that where there is an explained cash credits and if the cash credit represents income which has already been taxed same cannot be taxed again. 4.1 He particularly explained in regard to lower net profits, that the net profit before interest and remuneration to partners for the year under consideration was Rs 51,19,150/- while it…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,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, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 161/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke ACIT, Central Circle- M/s Motisons Jewellers Ltd. 2, Jaipur Vs. 270 to 272 & 276, Johari Bazar, Jaipur-302003. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCM 1827 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 178/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2…