CIT v. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co.

357 ITR 651High Court2013#4684 most cited

What is CIT v. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co. authority for?

An Assessing Officer can make additions for both unexplained cash credits under section 68 and estimated business income under section 44AD, even if the books of account are rejected. Unexplained sundry creditors can be treated as income from undisclosed sources.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. G.S.Tiwari and Co. · section 68 · section 44AD · unexplained cash credit · sundry creditors · undisclosed sources · estimation of profit · rejection of books of account · onus of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 144Section 145(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 269SS

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbesection 2(9)section 66section 106trade creditorsonus of proofsection 155section 269section 269sssundry creditorssurvey under section 133asection 44ad

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co.

Shri Santosh Chandumal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 162/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit A-56, Near Jain Bhavan, Bus Stand, Central Circle 2(1) Pandhurna,Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Adapt 8743 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Brokerage Income At Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…nn.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has 11. submitted supported Brokerage Details i.e. Sr. No. Name of the persons from whom brokerage has been received and how much brokerage income were received, which were already submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before assessing officer as wel…

Harsha Santosh Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 161/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Pandhurna, Nagpur Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Thoctober 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…n.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only 14. contention of department is that the assessee has shown abnormal amount of profit and not supported with bills and voucher but in the case of the assessee the income has been shown U/s. 44AD of the Act and supported sale register, which were already submitted by the assessee during…

Harsha Santosh Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 160/NAG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Nagpur Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…n.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only 14. contention of department is that the assessee has shown abnormal amount of profit and not supported with bills and voucher but in the case of the assessee the income has been shown U/s. 44AD of the Act 14 Harisha Santosh Tanwani vs ACIT, C.C-2(1), Nagpur and supported sale registe…

Shri Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 159/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 41, Prop. Shankar Kirana, Tar Bazar, Central Circle 2(1) Main Road,Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Aiqpt 1252 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 7Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…n.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesseehas 12. submitted supported Brokerage Details i.e. Sr. No. Name of the persons from whom brokerage has been received and how much brokerage income were received, which were already submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before assessing officer as wel…

Asha Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is party allowed

ITA 158/NAG/2021[2019-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2021

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…n.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only 14. contention of department is that the assessee has shown abnormal amount of profit and not supported with bills and voucher but in the 15 Asha Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT, Central Circlr 2(1), Nagpur case of the assessee the income has been shown U/s. 44AD of the Act and supported s…