How many judgments cite CIT v. Jauharimal Goel?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jauharimal Goel (147 Taxmann 448), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jauharimal Goel come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153C, Section 194-1A.

CIT v. Jauharimal Goel

147 Taxmann 448High Court2005#4090 most cited

What is CIT v. Jauharimal Goel authority for?

Deposits made in cash into a bank account, if unexplained, are considered undisclosed income taxable under sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act. The court affirmed that such deposits can be treated as unexplained investment under section 69.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel · section 68 · section 69 · unexplained investment · cash deposit · undisclosed income · bank account · income tax act · Allahabad High Court

Also reported as

201 CTR 54

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

shell company source of source section 246 section 250(4)section 41 addition under section 68 admission of additional evidence principal commissioner of income-tax share application money tangible material documents seized rule 46a

Judgments citing CIT v. Jauharimal Goel

Verma Service Station, Firozabad vs. ACIT, Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 212/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER,AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.212/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) Verma Service Station Bye Pass Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Road, Firozabad. Firozabad. PAN: AAAFV0442K (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Shri R. K. Agarwal & Rahul Agarwal, Advs. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 18.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.09.2019 ORDER Per Dr. M.L. Meena, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of In…

Late Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain (Through Legal Heir Sh. Ankit Jain) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

ITA/468/2018HC Delhi08 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 69Section 69A

…ile confirming the addition on merit. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court ITA No. 468/2018 Page 3 of 8 in the case of Jauhari Mal Goel 201 CTR 54 (.All.) held that deposit in the bank account would amount to investment under section 69 of the I. T. Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that no addition could be made on account of cash deposited in the bank account of assessee and others. The contention of the Learned Counsel for t…

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

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

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vikrant Kansal Prop. Vs. ITO Ward 1(3), V.K. Teleservices, Bathinda Bathinda [PAN: AGVPK 6899E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.) Respondent by: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.07.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘CI…

Abdul Hafiz, Udhampur vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-2, Jammu

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

ITA 465/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 465/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 465/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Abdul Hafiz, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Near Post Office Jakhni, Tax, Circle-2, Jammu Udhampur (J & K) [PAN: AARPH 6698A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 14.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 19.03.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax…

Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 640/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 473 & 640/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumar Das -Vs- Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata [Pan: Adspd 7417 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

…it is held that the assessee has not established that the deposits were made on the advice of Banking Authorities. The deposits made in cash are held to be undisclosed income taxable u/s 68/69/69A as held in the cases of :- (i) CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel (2006) 201 CTR 54 (ALL). (ii) Smt. Renu Agarwal vs. ITO (2012) 136 ITD 343 (Agra) (TM) The Third Member decision in the case of Smt. Renu Agarwal is at par with the any Special Bench decision of the ITAT as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of P.C.Puri vs. CIT(1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi) and also by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Oman International Ba…

Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A. Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

Mr Vidit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3075/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia and Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DR

Section 131

…of the I.T. Act. However, he did not dispute that addition could be made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act Page 4 of 10 Mr. Vidit Jain vs. ITO regarding unexplained investment in the bank account. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 201 CTR 54 held that deposit in the bank account would amount to unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, merely mentioning section 68 in the assessment order would not be significant, therefore this argument of Ld. Counsel for assessee is rejected. 5. Ld. Counsel for assessee further submitted that assessee has received gift of Rs. 7,70,…

Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3573/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3573/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ C/O. D. C. Jain & Co., R. N. 640, M. K. Road, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg., 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 3561 H (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3762/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers बनाम/ Room Ni. 640, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 24, 2Nd Fanaswadi, D. A. Lane, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri D. C. Jain Revenue By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 13.03.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S

For Appellant: Shri D. C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3573/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Dy. CIT, Range 4(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ C/o. D. C. Jain & Co., R. N. 640, M. K. Road, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg., 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG 3561 H (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3762/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. CIT, R…

Atulkumar Rajkumar Agarwal, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7374/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7374/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atulkumar Rajkumar Agarwal Ito-10(3)(4), बनाम/ 203, Rajkar Bhavan, Sector 17, Mumbai Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aanpa 3025 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. P. Chhajed ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. S. Bist सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 01.09.2014, Dismissing 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.) 2008- 09 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2010. 2. Per Ground 1, Reproduced As Under, The Assessee Raises The Issue Of The Order U/S.143(3) Without Issue Of Notice U/S.143(2) And, Thus, The Impugned Assessment, As Bad In Law:

For Appellant: Shri M. P. ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7374/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atulkumar Rajkumar Agarwal ITO-10(3)(4), बनाम/ 203, Rajkar Bhavan, Sector 17, Mumbai Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AANPA 3025 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M. P. Chhajed ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. S. Bist सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.11.2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क"…