CIT v. K.S Kannan Kunhi

87 ITR 395Supreme Court of India1973#12994 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceshare application moneyaddition u/s 68section 131genuineness of the transactionundisclosed incomesection 69asection 68section 69previous yearsection 13transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. K.S Kannan Kunhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S. Shrish Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 5315/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…P a g e | 1 DCIT Vs. M/s Shrish Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Room No. 225E, CR Vs. M/s Shrish Enterprise Building, 2nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. IP Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCS0684N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.…

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…t is considered by the AO as low may provoke an enquiry, but they may not be sufficient to justify action u/s. 145. 7 26 ITR 159 Pandit Brothers vs. The AO cannot say that merely CIT because there is no stock register the account books must be false. 8 (1973) 87 ITR 395 (SC) CIT vs .K.S. Kannan The hon’ble supreme court held, Kunhi “where explanation of the assessee was not absurd and it was capable of being examined, I.T. authority acted arbitrarily in rejecting the explanation without 13 SATISH CHAND GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR making proper enquiry. Further, it may be noted that A.O. merely disbelieved b…

Morani Motoras Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the ground no

ITA 434/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 68

…partment cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. It is within the rant of these principles that such cases have to be decided. In another case hon'ble Supreme Court held in case of CIT v. K.S. Kannan Kunhi 87 ITR 395 (SC) that A.O must examine the merits of assessee's explanation for Cash Credit in the books. No addition can be made by merely observing that the explanation is not satisfactory. In case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) held that the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. Further, the…

M/S Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-6, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40ASection 40aSection 68

…artment cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. It is within the range of these principles that such cases have to be decided. In another case hon`ble Supreme Court held in case of CIT v. K.S. Kannan Kunhi 87 ITR 395 (SC) that A.O must examine the merits of assessee’s explanation for Cash Credit in the books. No addition can be made by merely observing that the explanation is not satisfactory. In case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) held that the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. Further, the…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…at where the explanation furnished by an assessee about the amount credited is prima facie reasonable, the said explanation cannot be rejected on capricious and arbitrary grounds. (iii) That Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs K.S Kannan Kunhi (1973) 87 ITR 395 (SC) in para 6 of the judgment expressed its displeasure explanation furnished by the assessee and for rejecting the same arbitrarily and without assigning any reason for the same. The ratio of the judgment in this case is that the assessee's explanation must, be examined carefully and if it is found not to be acceptable, the proper reason for rej…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…at where the explanation furnished by an assessee about the amount credited is prima facie reasonable, the said explanation cannot be rejected on capricious and arbitrary grounds. (iii) That Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs K.S Kannan Kunhi (1973) 87 ITR 395 (SC) in para 6 of the judgment expressed its displeasure explanation furnished by the assessee and for rejecting the same arbitrarily and without assigning any reason for the same. The ratio of the judgment in this case is that the assessee's explanation must, be examined carefully and if it is found not to be acceptable, the proper reason for rej…

ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2008/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2008/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

…The enquiry too must be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. All the material whether for or against the assessee must be shown to the assessee and afford him opportunity to rebut, where necessary, and meet the case of the department. In 87 ITR 395 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal made by revenue on the ground that the Tribunal, which is the final fact finding authority, had arbitrarily rejected the assessee's explanation without examining the merit of the assessee's case. Considering all the different principles laid down by Hon'ble Courts in such matters as elucidated i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…. CIT-Bangalore [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) " CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) " Jalan Timber vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) 23 Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. " Addl. CIT Bihar vs. Hanuman Prasad Aggarwal 151 ITR 151 (Pat) " CIT vs. Kannan Kunhi 87 ITR 395 " CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 " CIT vs. Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 14. It was further submitted as under: “..............Your honour in this regard it is also to mention that the appellant has fully cooperated with the department. The appellant provided all details with regard to parties from whom it had a…

CIT v. K.S Kannan Kunhi (87 ITR 395) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax