CIT v. Intezar Ali

372 ITR 651High Court2015#17860 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

nfac

Judgments citing CIT v. Intezar Ali

SALEK CHAND SAINI,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2545/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2545/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2014-15] Shri Salek Chand Saini Vs. The I.T.O. H. No. 198, Mohalla Raza Darwaza Ward - 2(3) Meerut Road, Parikshitgarh, Meerut Meerut PAN: PCECPS 3545 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CA Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld…

EAPPEN PAPPACHAN,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 69

…e the plea of the assessee could not be accepted. 11. We have also perused the judgments of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidya reported in [1975] 98 ITR 280 and in the case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali reported in [2015] 372 ITR 651 which was relied on by the assessee. In case of CIT vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidya cited supra, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had accepted the finding of the Tribunal that the revenue could succeed only in case they had brought on record materials from which it could be concluded that the deposit made by the wife and two major sons were in fact ma…

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

…evidences produced by the assessee proves the sources of funds. Therefore, merely on the statement of the other party, addition cannot be made. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Intezar Ali, 372 ITR 651 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the circumstantial evidences submitted by the assessee, which goes to prove that the amount received by the seller towards the sale of the property, will be sufficient proof for discharging the burden cast on the assessee. In the instant case, the seller received the sale consideration for sale of agr…

SHRI KAILASH CHAND YADAV,SIKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, NEEMKATHANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 173/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/o-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIUPY 2977 J Appellant Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDKOT vs. SMT. HARMANPREET KAUR, FARIDKOT

ITA 613/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 613/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Negi (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…preme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT-50 ITA 1 and followed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lachhman Das Oswal-126 ITR 446. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision in the case of Intezar Ali 372 ITR 651, without appreciating that the facts of the case are quite different in as-much-as no witness to sale deed has deposed before any authority and the assessee has never disputed the value of the property before the registering authority as was done in the case of Intezar Ali.” 4. The CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of remand report submitted…

CIT v. Intezar Ali (372 ITR 651) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax