CIT v. K. Sreedharan

201 ITR 1010High Court1993#8298 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbesection 115bbsection 115bsection 115section 68section 69section 69asection 142(1)section 143(1)section 11section 143(2)business

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Sreedharan

SHEO PUJAN PANDEY,RATLAM vs. DCIT RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 922/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Sheo Pujan Pandey, Dcit C/O Anant Chopra & Ratlam Company, 59, बनाम/ Stadium Market, Vs. Ratlam (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpp6007E Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

Section 104Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…Sehgal, ITA No. 5660/Del/2012, order dated 05.09.2014 (ii) ITAT, Chennai in Ganapathy Paneerselvam Vs. The Income-tax Officer, ITA No. 609/Chny/2025, order dated 27.06.2025 (iii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Sreedharan (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (Ker) 7. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to delete the addition made by AO. Alternatively, he agreed that the bench may remand this case to AO for a fresh adjudication with suitable directions. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR for revenue requested to turn down the Ld. AR’s request to delete the addition. He, however, agreed that he would have…

SANT LAL AGGARWAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

ITA 2243/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…quiring that cash withdrawn/available with an assessee, if remains unutilized, has to be redeposited immediately. [ITO v. Baburao K. Paisal [IT Appeal No. 6091/Mum/2012 dated 22-12-2014]. It is further submitted that in the case of CIT v. K. Sreedharan [1993] 201 ITR 1010 (Ker.) it was held that non- spending of money during the period between the date of the withdrawal of the amount and the date of its later deposit is a negative fact and hence, the Revenue can't ask the assessee to bring forth positive evidence regarding the non-spending of such amount(s). In other words, the Revenue can't place the negative on…

THEKKINIAN PAULOSE VARKEY,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 960/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thekkinian Poulose Varkey .......... Appellant Thekkinian (H), Koratty South P.O., Thrissur 68030 [Pan: Aedpv4959E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Executing Construction Contracts Under The Name & Style Of T.P. Constructions. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 77,93,730/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thekkinian Poulose Varkey .......... Appellant Thekkinian (H), Koratty South P.O., Thrissur 68030 [PAN: AEDPV4959E] vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee by: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.09…

GANAPATHY PANNEERSELVAM,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP. WARD 19(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 609/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganapathy Panneerselvam, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.19, New No.49, Vs. Non-Corp. Ward -19(4), Chetty Street, Chennai. Saidapet West, Chennai – 600 015. [Pan:Bikpp-3640-L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. & Shri. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…tervening period before redeposit, unless there is a clear finding that the explanation offered is implausible or contradicted by facts on record. 17. The ld. AR, further relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. K. Sreedharan [1993] 201 ITR 1010 (Ker), submitted that the Hon’ble High Court had held that even a time gap of four years between the source and its subsequent deposit does not, by itself, negate the presumption of continued availability of the funds. In the present case, the ld. AR pointed out that the time gap between the assessee’s cash withdrawals and subsequent re-deposits…

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

…Neeta Breja (extract at page 186 of Paper Book) iii) 126 ITR 263 (P&H) Shiv Charan Dass v. CIT (extract at page 187 of Paper Book) iv) 99 TTJ 250 (Ahd) Anand Autoride Ltd. v. JCIT affirmed by Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. K.J. Sridharan reported in 201 ITR 1010 v) ITA No.253/Viz/2020 Dated: 12.05.2021 ACIT Vs M/s HirapannaJewellers (extract at page 187 of Paper Book) 11 In light of the aforesaid, addition made of Rs. 32,34,000/-may kindly be deleted. 12 It is therefore, prayed that it be held addition made and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the ap…

VARSHA RATAN BHALWANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3645/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

…bank, the revenue cannot make the addition stating that the reason for withdrawal is not acceptable to the AO and that the cash has been kept unutilized. In this regard we noticed that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Sreedharan (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (Ker.) wherein it was held that the period of four years between 1976-77 and 19880-81 is not so long period as to rebut the presumption regarding the continued availability of the amount. 8. We notice further that during the assessment proceedings of the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2016-17, the AO had called for details pertain…

AJAY BAIRAGI,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

ITA 641/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…e also take into consideration the following case laws which finds favour in the case of the assessee. 1. CIT vs Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) 2. Sunil Mathur vs ITO, Ward 2(4), Kota (ITA NO. 66/JP/2019 order dated 01-11-2021). 3. CIT vs K Sreedharan [1993] 201 ITR 1010 (Kerala). 4. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical vs CIT [1995 AIR 1295) 20 SHRI AJAY BAIRAGI, KOTA VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA 5. ITO vs Shri M Prabhakar (ITA No.1727/Hyd/2014 – ITAT Hyderabad B Bench) 6. Abhilasha Jain vs DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax) ITA No.5/JP/2022) By taking into consideration the facts, circumstances of the case and the case laws relied upon…

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…dtd. 30-11 2018] nor is there any law requiring the depositing back of the unused amounts withdrawn from banks immediately or as soon as possible [ITO v. Baburao K. Paisal (IT Appeal No. 6091 (Mum) of 2012 dtd. 22-12-2014) x) Vide CIT v. K. Sreedharan (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (Ker) non-spending of money during the period between the date of the withdrawal of the amount and the date of its later deposit is a negative fact and hence, the Revenue can't ask the assessee to bring forth positive evidence regarding the non-spending of such amount(s). In other words. the Revenue can't place the negative onus on the assessee…

SHRI VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE,WARDHA vs. DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 37/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Vs. The Dcit Thru Legal Heir Vilas Vasantrao Ghonge Central Circle 1 (1) Gharpure Layout, Nagri Bank Colony, Nagpur Warda Pan No.:Aiwpg 6212 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Dated 21/12/2015 In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-3/242/2013-14 For Asstt. Year 2011-12. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant For Asstt. Year 2011-12 Are As Under:- “A) The Learned A.O. Was Wrong & Unjustified In Making An Addition Of Samarpan Nidhi Of Rs.20,79,936/- To The Total Income Of The Undersigned Assessee As Net Business / Vocational Income. B) The Learned A.O. Was Wrong Arbitrary & Unjustified In Making An Addition Of Receipts Of B.S.Y. Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Nyas Of Rs.5,21,349/- To The Total Income Of The Undersigned Assessee On The Presumption That Those Receipts Belong To The Undersigned.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…/- not pressed and thus it is available to explain cash found on principle of telescoping. J) Reliance on: i) ITAT order in IT(SS) No.50/Nag/2006 in the case of Shri Sewakram K. Gurbaxani vide order dated 25/01/2007. (P. 10 – 18 (16, 17) [Vol.-II] ii) (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (Ker.) CIT vs. K. Sreedharan (P. 19 – 26) (25) [Vol. – II] iii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No.166 of 2017 in the case of M/s. Arth Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 15/04/2019. (P. 39 – 44) (44) [Vol.-II] iv) ITAT order in ITA No.6764/Mum/2010 in the case of Arth Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 30/10/2015. (P. 2…

P DURGA VENKATA MANGATAYARU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2021 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Smt. Durga Venkata Mangatayaru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Puppala, Ward-4(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Bgbpm 4729 C (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri Pavan Kumar Gorti प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar GortiFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…assessee initially deposited Rs. 2.50 lakhs on 16/11/2016 and Rs. 10.84 lakhs on 5/12/2016. The Ld. AR submitted that the balance amount of Rs 6,66,000/- was spent by the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. K. Sreedharan (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (Ker.). The Ld.AR also relied on decisions of Co-ordinate Benches as detailed in the paper book. Per contra, the Ld. DR questioned the necessity of holding such huge cash balance for a period of 17 months. The Ld. DR also pointed out to the fact that the assessee has deposited the cash subsequent to the announcement of demonetization in two ins…

MAHENDRA KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE (INTL TAX.), JAIPUR, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 226/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…various cases:- • ITO vs. Rajeev Suresh Ghai in ITA No. 6290/Mum/2019 dated 23.11.2021. • Smt. Suraj Kanwar Devra vs. ITO in ITA No. 50/Jofh/2021 dated 23.11.2021 • Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 53/Jodh/2021 dated 07.09.2021. • CIT vs. K. Sreedharan 201 ITR 1010 (Ker) • Sunanda Sanjay Chandaliya vs. ITO in ITA No. 1967/PUN/2018 dated 02.05.2019. • Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1955 AIR 65, 1955 SCR (1) 941 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in arguments taken by the Ld. AR of the assessee and the AO has rightly taken as a…

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

ITA 53/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…eposits in the bank account on the ground that the cash was allegedly kept in hand for a long period of two years, in my considered view is not tenable. Once a that such amount was spent elsewhere. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. K. Sreedharan (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (Kerala) has held that: The period of four years between 1976-77 and 1980-81 is not so long a period as to rebut the presumption regarding the continued availability of the amount. 5. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the assessee was regularly filing returns and balance sheets on year to year basis. The availability o…

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1293/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 69C

…curred by the assessee have to be telescoped out of the cash generated through over invoicing. The Ld. A.R. referred to the following decisions in defence of his arguments : i) Shri Sewakram K. Gurbaxani ITA(SS) No.50/Nag/2006 ii) CIT vs. K. Sreedharan ( 1993)201 ITR 1010 (Ker.) iii) Shri Rameshwar Lal Soni S/o Late Sh.Mangi Lal Soni ITA No.34/2007 vide order dated 07/03/2017. ( Raj) M/s. Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. iv) Rameshwar Lal Soni vs. ACIT (2004)91 ITD 0301 (TM) v) CIT vs. Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (1985) 151 ITR 0353 (Bom.) vi) CIT Vs M/s. Golani Brothers in ITA No. 17 of 2015 vide order dated 29/08/201…

CIT v. K. Sreedharan (201 ITR 1010) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax