How many judgments cite CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal?

84 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 250, Section 68, Section 147, Section 148, Section 132.

CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal

366 ITR 217High Court2014#1360 most cited

What is CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot make an addition under section 68 without conducting further inquiries to disprove the assessee's explanation of the source of cash credits. The assessee is not required to prove the 'source of source'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal · section 68 · addition under section 68 · source of source · creditworthiness of the creditor · cash credits · unexplained money · assessment procedure · evidence · onus and natural justice · section 142(1) · section 250

Also reported as

224 Taxmann 87

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 250 Section 68 Section 147 Section 148 Section 132 Section 153C Section 194-1A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

source of source shell company permanent account number paper company section 246 addition under section 68 creditworthiness of the creditor section 250(4)section 41 admission of additional evidence principal commissioner of income-tax share application money

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal

ITO 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Puran C. Chhajed, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4718/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm Ito – 11(3)(2), Mumbai Vs. Mr. Puran C.Chhajed 5, 1St Floor, Noble Apt., Lbs Marg, Kurla (West) Mumbai – 400 070 Pan/Gir No. Aabpc2464R Appellant) .. Respondent) & Mr. Puran C.Chhajed Vs. Ito – 11(3)(2), Mumbai 5, 1St Floor, Noble Apt., Lbs Marg, Kurla (West) Mumbai – 400 070 Pan/Gir No. Aabpc2464R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…ess of the transactions stood proved and in the absence of any evidence to prove that money actually belonged to the assessee himself, additions under section 68 was not sustainable in view of the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217. As the assessee has primafacily proved the identity, capacity, genuineness, parties who are assessed to tax, additions confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. 9. We also found that in response to the summons so issued by the AO, lenders appeared and filed the loan confirmation, bank pass book, pan number and copy of return alongwith balance s…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…0 ITR 159(Mad.HC), CIT v. Kapoor Chand Magnesh Chand(2003) 218 Taxman 157(Mag.)(All. HC) , CIT v. Chandela Trading Company Private Limited (2015) 372 ITR 232(Cal. HC), CIT v. Smt Sanghamita Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481(Gau. HC), CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217(Raj. HC), CIT v. Nemichand Kothari (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gau. HC), CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls and Investment Limited(2016) 237 Taxman 104(Del HC), CIT v. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480(SC) . Our attention was also drawn to instruction no. F.No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10-03-2003 issued by CBDT with respect to confessions of additional income d…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Shri Banwari Lal, Haryana vs. ITO, Fatehabad

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

ITA 1542/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.1542/Del./2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Banwari Lal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2, S/O Shri Bishan Dass, Fatehabad. 31, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Distt. Fatehabad.

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Peeyush Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR

Section 68

…hat mere fact that the source of source of the creditors was not explained could be a ground to bring to tax sum received as loan by the appellant. The appellant supported his submission by relying upon the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj) (ii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 361 ITR 220 (Del) (iii) Mod Creation (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 354 ITR 282 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs Mayawati 338 ITR 563 (Del) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vi) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (vii) CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) (viii) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR…