How many judgments cite CIT v. Kulwant Rai?

142 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kulwant Rai (291 ITR 36), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kulwant Rai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 69A, Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 69, Section 132.

CIT v. Kulwant Rai

291 ITR 36High Court2007#713 most cited

What is CIT v. Kulwant Rai authority for?

An assessee can explain cash deposits, including those in bank accounts, by demonstrating sufficient cash balance as per their books of account or from previous cash withdrawals. If the explanation is substantiated and the revenue cannot prove otherwise, the source of deposits is deemed proved, precluding additions under Section 68.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kulwant Rai · Section 68 · Section 115BBE · cash deposits explanation · source of cash deposits · cash book · previous cash withdrawals · unexplained money · onus of proof · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 585210 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 68 Section 69 Section 132 Section 153A Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bc circle rate preponderance of probability section 2(47)interest u/s 234a lack of enquiry section 69b section 158b section 158 section 48 dumb documents section 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Kulwant Rai

Ramesh Rajpal HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 46(1), Civic Centre

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

ITA 6408/DEL/2025[1994-1995]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 1994-1995

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarramesh Rajpal Vs. Dcit Z-45, Phase 2 Okhal Circle 46(1) Industrial Area, New Civic Centre Delhi 110020 New Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahr 4142 Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. R S Singvi, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ished: A series of related diary entries, when internally consistent and mutually corroborative, acquire collective evidentiary value even if no single entry explicitly states the transaction in question. This principle finds support in:  CIT v. Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36 (Del): Court held that seized documents need not be rejected in toto merely because they originate from a third party; rather, the AO may extract inferences from internal consistency and verifiable facts within such documents.  CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal, 293 ITR 43 (Del): The Court recognized that circumstantial evidence derived from seized records, w…

Sahanur Mondal, Taki vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2159/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Sahanur Mondal………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dakshin Gollachanda, P.O Taki, Sankchura, North 24 Parganas-743429.. [Pan: Bogpm8081J] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 20, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.6,38,270/-. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 & The Assessee Could Not File Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits In Two Bank Accounts Of Assessee’S Minor Children. The Assessing Officer Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee As Under: Sahanur Mondal

Section 148Section 250

…the Assessing Officer did not take correct method of taxation, in the present case the proper method of taxation is the peak credit ratio. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee filed the following decisions before us: (a) CIT v. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del.) peak credit applicable where withdrawals and deposits are interlinked 3 Sahanur Mondal (b) CIT v. S. Giridhar (2016) 385 ITR 372 (Mad.) cash rotation to be taxed on peak basis (c) CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) (d) ITO v. Shailesh Gandhi (ITAT Mumbai) (e) ITO v. Basant Lai Om Parkash (ITAT Amritsar) 6.1 We note that th…

Pradip Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(7), Hmt Bhavan, Bellary Road

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

ITA 2270/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar, CA

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 68Section 69A

…the addition of ₹ 31,17,500/-as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the same representing part of the sale consideration of the residential house property sold for ₹61,00,000/-on 07.07.2010, Reliance is placed on CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Delhi)). Page 2 of 5 2. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ₹ 29,15,000/- was deposited in the bank on the very date of execution of the sale deed (07.07.2010), clearly establishing a nexus between the sale consideration and the cash deposits. Reliance: CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570 (SC)). 3. The addition results in double taxat…

Dy. CIT, Income Tax Deptt vs. Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd., Gujrat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/DEL/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2017] Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan Vs. Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Haryana 211, World Trade Centre, Karnal Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.75/Del/2025 (In Ita No.953/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2017] Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan 211, World Trade Centre, Haryana Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Karnal Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 68

…was no finding recorded by the assessing officer or the Commissioner that apart from depositing this cash into bank as explained by the assessee, there was any other purposes it is used by the assessee of these amounts. 4.11. Even in of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai in 291 ITR 36 where the cash withdrawal was 5-6 year earlier, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court deleted the additions and has held as under:- "This cash flow statement furnished by the assessee was rejected by the AO which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessee must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of AO as well as CIT(A) are complet…

Pandian Hari, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2628/CHNY/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2628/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Pandian Hari, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Thambuchetty Street, Parrys, Chennai - 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 05.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2023-24. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…is contention, the Ld.AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements i. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan reported in (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) ii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai reported in (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del) 6. The Ld.DR on the other hand submitted that assessee has not furnished confirmation nor the details such as PAN, etc., of the mother, wife and relatives either before the AO or the FAA. It was further submitted that the FAA has categorically held that the cash book and books of account has not been furnished to prove that the source of cas…

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 4.3In CIT v/s H.S. Builders (P) Ltd 78 DTR 169(Raj.): Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition after finding that the assessee had submitted the accounts of return, the com…

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT_v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT_v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. Therefore under these facts, circumstances legal position the additions so made may kindly be deleted in full and oblige. In support of the above submissions, the ld. AR of the as…

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Aayakarbhavan, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

…cluding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (supra), Common Cause (A. Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC), CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi High Court) and CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi High Court), the facts of these cases are totally different from the facts of the assessee’s case and cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. Thus, we reject the case laws relied upon by the assessee. 14. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the assessee could n…

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 796/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 795/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 17 Sh. Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar. 6. Addition on account of unsecured loan cannot be made u/s 69A: Further the ld. AO has made the addition of Rs.6,20,000/- which have been re…

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).All the addition deserves deletion on this submission alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). Here we would like to submit that while doing a judicious act by a person (here the AO) should also keep in mind the circumstance, facts, general approach, status etc. . He should not restrict to himself only to the evidence where the same is not possible. Here the AO restricted to himself only evidence and ignored the circumstance, facts,…

Ashish Bhargava, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 875/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashish Bhargava cuke The DCIT, D-92, Krishna Marg, Amba Bari, Vs. Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AEPPB8644E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.A.. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCI…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 602/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/s. Rudra Buildwell Homes DCIT, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi PAN: AAFCR6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising out of ITA No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Rudra Buildwell Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida PAN: AAFCR6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, ITP Department by Sh.…

Mahendra Singh Dasana, Kandivali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 586/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 69C

…following judgments: 1. Smt. Sanjeet kanwar Vs. ITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 266 (Amritsar - Trib) 2. CIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 36 3. ITI Vs. Amit K. Shah [2016] 71 taxmann.com 256 (Ahd - Trib) 4. Swati Malove Divetia Vs. ITO 5. CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del) 6. DCIT Vs. Smt. Veen Awasthi ITA No. 215/LKW/2016 7. Neeta Breja Vs. ITO, ITA No. 524/Del/2017 8. Jaspal Singh Sehgal Vs. ITO, ITA No. 5590/Mum/2012 9. ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. Vs. DCIT 10. Sukhnandan Premi, Vs. Department of Income Tax 11. Manoj Chourasia Vs. Department of Income Tax 12. Shri Prabhat Sojatia Vs. ACIT 4. On the contrary Ld…

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. G N International P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2851/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarg. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji Circle-10(2), Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Dcit, Vs. G. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-4, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Dadhur Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 68

…see and that the same was not available as a cash source with the assessee as on the date of making the deposit. Reliance in this regard has been placed rightly by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Kulwant Rai reported in 291 ITR 36(Del). Since the onus has not been proved by the revenue in the instant case and assessee on its part had filed the ITA No. 2851/Del/2022 G. N. International Pvt. Ltd entire cash book for the whole year wherein it is established that the cash deposit has been met out of the cash balance available as per books, there is no scope for making any addi…

G N International P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2676/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Sikar vs. Bhaskar Chauhan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…There were agreements for sale of the goods on high sea basis. Once the goods have been sold, the buyer became the debtor and any receipt of money from him is the realization of such debt. Therefore, Section 68 cannot be applied. (f) CIT v. Kulwant Rai (2007)291 ITR 36 (DEL) In the facts of above case cash balance of Rs.3,76,800/- was found in the bed room of the assessee during the course of search on 14.02.2001. The Assessing Officer made addition in the assessment of Rs. 2.5 lacs. The assessee submitted cash flow and had shown that entire cash was out of withdrawals made from the bank from time to time and su…

Jagsir Singh, Village Virkkhera, Malout vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 479/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…gh Negi v. DCIT in ITA No. 811 & 812/Chd/2014 Chd. Bench 4. ITO v. Chandan Nijjer in ITA No. 61/Asr/2016 dated 08.08.2016 (Asr Bench) 5. ITO v. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal in ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 dated 05.09.2014 (Delhi Bench) 6. CIT v. Kulwant Rai as reported in 291 ITR 36 (Delhi HC).” 8. He further submitted that the assessee owns 12 acres (twelve) of agricultural land along with his brother’s wife Smt. Sandeep Kaur, and the family is engaged in self-cultivation which is supported by the jamabandi and khasra girdawari of the land which is already furnished. He also refers to the self-declaration given by Smt. 8…

Chirag Murdia, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle1, Udaipur

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

ITA 159/JODH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24Section 250

…strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held thatthe AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eyes of law. 2.3. Further when the ld. AO was of the view and having information that the assessee has received excess unaccounted rent from the tenant, then why he has not taken any action i…