CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal

158 ITR 826High Court1986#3447 most cited

What is CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal authority for?

A judicial authority can accept an assessee's statement when it is the only piece of evidence available.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Krishnaveni Ammal · 158 ITR 826 · section 69 · unexplained income · premium money · purchase agreement · assessment · additional income · judicial authority · assessee statement · only evidence

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)right to receivesection 10(34)disallowance of interest expenditureinterest under section 234asection 57interest u/s 234areopening of assessmentsection 234bsection 234asection 69csection 234

Judgments citing CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 706/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…liance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also o…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 709/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…liance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also o…

Ashok Makwana (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the each of the above assessee is dismissed

ITA 747/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.746 /Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ashok Batuklal Makwana, Flat No.E062, Door No.49, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Dlf Commanders Court, Chennai. Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Admpm1490R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.747/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Ashok Makwana (Huf) Flat No.E062, Door No.49, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Dlf Commanders Court, Chennai. Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaiha5661B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Jcit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 68

…its of similar nature through the very same manipulative penny stocks modus operandi and interestingly for similar amounts. 5.3.17 Attention is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal reported in [1986] 158 ITR 826 (MAD.), wherein it was held that: " when, there are other documentary evidence of corroborative value .... judicial body cannot act on such interested testimony of assessee alone ... " 5.3.18 Based on the discussion as above, these facts when viewed against the whole background of events as unfolded, apparently reinforce the modus operandi deta…

Ashok Batuklal Makwana, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the each of the above assessee is dismissed

ITA 746/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.746 /Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ashok Batuklal Makwana, Flat No.E062, Door No.49, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Dlf Commanders Court, Chennai. Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Admpm1490R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.747/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Ashok Makwana (Huf) Flat No.E062, Door No.49, Non-Corporate Ward 9(1), Dlf Commanders Court, Chennai. Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaiha5661B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Jcit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 68

…its of similar nature through the very same manipulative penny stocks modus operandi and interestingly for similar amounts. 5.3.17 Attention is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishnaveni Ammal reported in [1986] 158 ITR 826 (MAD.), wherein it was held that: " when, there are other documentary evidence of corroborative value .... judicial body cannot act on such interested testimony of assessee alone ... " 5.3.18 Based on the discussion as above, these facts when viewed against the whole background of events as unfolded, apparently reinforce the modus operandi deta…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1485/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…providers which is taxable.” The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is ne…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1482/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…providers which is taxable.” The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is ne…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1476/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…providers which is taxable.” The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is ne…

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1414/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…providers which is taxable.” The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is ne…

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1413/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…providers which is taxable.” The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is ne…

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1412/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…providers which is taxable.” The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is ne…

Sohanraj Uttamchand, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Dass, CITFor Respondent: 21.12.2017
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"ी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/CHNY/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The DCIT, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. PAN: AAAPU7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri Srinath Sridevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.M. Dass, CIT ""यथ" क"…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4118/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…statements of the appellant without rebutting the contents thereof cannot be disregarded as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826. We therefore conclude that deposits represented trading receipts in the business of chemicals carried out by the appellant of Titanimum Dioxide. Accordingly such deposits, could not have been taxed under section 68 of the Act. In arriving at the above conclusion, we also derive strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4117/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…statements of the appellant without rebutting the contents thereof cannot be disregarded as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826. We therefore conclude that deposits represented trading receipts in the business of chemicals carried out by the appellant of Titanimum Dioxide. Accordingly such deposits, could not have been taxed under section 68 of the Act. In arriving at the above conclusion, we also derive strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4116/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…statements of the appellant without rebutting the contents thereof cannot be disregarded as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826. We therefore conclude that deposits represented trading receipts in the business of chemicals carried out by the appellant of Titanimum Dioxide. Accordingly such deposits, could not have been taxed under section 68 of the Act. In arriving at the above conclusion, we also derive strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…