CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal

126 ITR 446High Court1980#3856 most cited

What is CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal authority for?

If an assessee fails to explain the source of a sum of money received or fails to prove that the receipt is not income or is exempt from tax, the Assessing Officer is entitled to treat the amount as taxable income.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal · onus of proof · unexplained income · source of funds · taxable income · cash credits · share application money · addition to income · CIT vs Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 31paper companyshare capital and share premiumsection 251(2)source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 251(1)(a)live linkadmission of additional evidenceshare application moneyentry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Lachhman Das Oswal

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 5742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 &…

Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Jammu

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

ITA 319/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…id credits/receipt, i.e., as representing a genuine liability, that is to be proved, the onus of which, in view of the deeming fiction of section 68, is on the assessee. As explained by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H), quoting from Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (at page 448 of the reports), that the onus of proving the source of the sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes being liable to tax, it is for him to show that the receipt was either not income, or if it is so, it was exempt from t…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

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

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…TR 1(SC) [affirming 34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) CIT v. Y.M. Singla [2014] 366 ITR 242 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) The reason for the same is simple; the assessee being in receipt of a sum of money, the onus is on him to show that the same was not in the nature of income, or, even so, is outside the ambit of…

The Income Tax Officer, Faridkot vs. Smt. Harmanpreet Kaur, Faridkot

ITA 613/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 613/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Negi (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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. 613/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer Vs. Harmanpreet Kaur D/o Sadhu Ward-3(4); Faridkot Singh, Street No. 3, Harindra Nagar, Faridkot [PAN: ADVPK 0813H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 15/Asr/2017 (arising out of ITA No. 613/Asr/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Harmanpreet Kaur D/o Sadhu Vs. Income Tax Officer Singh, Street No. 3, Harindra Ward-3(4); Faridkot Nagar, Faridkot [PAN: ADVPK 0813H] (Cross Objector) (Res…

Credit Suisse Business Analystics (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt.CIT- 15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 993/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 78

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/993/Mum/2015,िनधा" रण वष" आयकर िनधा"रण आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा" िनधा" रण रण वष" वष" Credit Suisse Business Analysis (India) ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, Room-403 Pvt. Ltd. Third and Fo…