How many judgments cite CIT v. P. Mohanakala?

525 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. P. Mohanakala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 115BBE, Section 69C, Section 133(6).

CIT v. P. Mohanakala

291 ITR 278Supreme Court of India2007#125 most cited

What is CIT v. P. Mohanakala authority for?

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,576 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P. Mohanakala · 291 ITR 278 · Section 68 · Section 69A · Section 69C · unexplained cash credit · undisclosed income · circumstantial evidence · burden of proof · assessee rebuttal · preponderance of probability · genuineness of transaction

Also reported as

161 Taxmann 169210 CTR 20

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 115BBE Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 148 Section 69A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor source of source addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction share application money entry operator unexplained cash credit principal commissioner of income-tax income-tax officer section 131 section 69c

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Mohanakala

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 that the provisions of Sec. 68 stipulates as under and shall be applicable on fulfilling the following conditions :- (i) There has to be a credit entry in the books of accounts of the assessee ; (ii) The books of account have to be of the previous year ; (iii) No explanation is submitted or explanation furnished is not found satisfactory. In the…

Marreddy Gundapureddy, Mattampalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri GSSS Gopinath, ARFor Respondent: Shri AGV Prasad, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 458/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Marreddy Gundapureddy, Income Tax Officer, Mattampalli Vs. Ward-1, [PAN No. AURPG8979M] Nalgonda अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri GSSS Gopinath, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri AGV Prasad, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 09/11/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 16/11/2023 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 28/07…

Bhumi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The DCIT, Circle-(1) (1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/RJT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 68

…mary onus cast or the explanation and evidence submitted by the assessee was not found satisfactory by the AO, then the sum credited in the books shall be deemed as income of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala reported in 291 ITR 278 while dealing with scope of 5 A.Y. 2013-14 (Bhumi Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT) provisions of the section 68 of the Act held that “the opinion of the AO that the explanation furnished by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of…

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

…years could be granted it was proved that the investment was made in several years: 10.7 Similarly in the case of CIT vs VA Oli Maiconmad (296 ITR 570) the Madra High Count, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIFP MOhanakala (291 ITR 278) affirmed the order of the ITAT in confirming the addition made on account of difference in the value of cost of construction of building determined by DVO vis-a-dis declared in the books of accounts over the period of construction as unexplained u/s 6913 of the Act 10.8 The Calcutta High Court in the case of el Construction Company Ltd Vr JCIE (…

M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 753/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2012-13 M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito N-18, First Floor, Ward-15(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017 Pan Aabcl9997R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 68

…of section 68 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Govindaraju Mudaliyar (34 ITR 807), Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif (50 ITR 1), Devi Prasad Biswanath Prasad (72 ITR 194), Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) and so on. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohana Kala (291 ITR 278) explains the meaning of the expression 'the assessee offers no explanation' appearing in section 68 to mean that the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation. It was held that the opinion of the AO for not accepting the explanation offered is required to be formed objectively with reference to proper appreciation of mater…

M/S Aadhi Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 308/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं"ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 308/CHNY/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks v. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. PAN: AANCA 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA Shri S. Neelakantan, FCA Shri Shrenik Chordia, CA ""यथ…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Deepsons Southened

ITA/1008/2018HC Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…ITA 1008/2018 Page 1 of 8 $~6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 11.08.2023 + ITA 1008/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Shivansh B. Pandya, Standing Counsel and Mr Utkash Tiwari, Adv. versus DEEPSONS SOUTHENED ..... Respondent Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr R.R. Maurya, Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr Anshul Mittal, Advs. + ITA…

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6040 & 6120/MUM/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Forever Flourishing Fin. & DCIT(CC)-3(4), Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(4), Room No. Vs. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Off J P 1915, 19th floor, Air India Road, Dawood Baug Lane, Building, Nariman Point, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400058. PAN NO. AAACF 4311 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay Daga Revenue by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 13/07/2023 Date o…

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

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

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…dari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the AO had accepted the sales and no unexplained cash credits were found, thus, the case law relied upon by the Ld.DR is also distinguishable on the facts of the case. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of CIT VS P.Mohanakala, 161 Taxmann 169, CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 72 ITR 194(SC) both the cases refer to the sums found credited in the books of account but not offered as income, whereas in the instant case the assessee admitted the same as sales and offered for taxation, hence, the case laws has no application in the assessee's case. The Ld.DR also relied on the decis…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

…ied: Above submissions have been made assuming S.68 was applicable as per ld. CIT however, the law is well settled that for invoking of S.68, the subjected amount must be found credited in the accounts regularly maintained. 4.1 In CIT vs. P. Mohan Kala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) held “The question is what is the nature and scope of S. 68 of the Act? When and in what circumstances Sec. 68 of the Act would come into play? That a bare reading of S. 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by assessee; some credit has to be of during the previous year ---” 4.2 In ANAND RAM RAITANI vs. C…

Everest Education Society, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Exemtion Circle, Aurangabad

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

ITA 525/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250

…robabilities and drawing adverse inference in the light of judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Durga Prasad More’, reported in 72 ITR 807, ‘CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull’, reported in 87 ITR 349, and ‘CIT Vs P Mohanakala’, reported at 291 ITR 278(SC). 13. The plea of the appellant that the clerk in the first instance submitted the incorrect list as the original list was maintained in a language other than english hence certain errors were crept-in which has been rectified before the first appellate proceedings by bringing on record new list of correct donors failed to inspire any confide…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Everest Education Society, Aurangabad

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

ITA 1919/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250

ITO, Ncw - 3 (4), Chennai vs. Ms. Kavitha Siddareddy, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Income Tax Officer, Ms.Kavithasiddareddy, Non-Corporate Ward-3(4), No.7/1, Surabhi, Chennai. Sriram Nagar, North Street, Opp. To Frontline Eye Hospital, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aeppk 0880 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit. : Assessee By Mr.D.Anand, Adv : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha.G:

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…from the firm in which assessee's husband is partner and that the said firm had also not filed its return of income for the AY 2013-14 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court's rulings in the case of CIT vs P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 wherein it was held that the transactions though apparent were held to be not real one. 2.5 The ld CIT(A) ought to have noted that as per the mandate of section 69 of the I.T. Act, where an assessee has made investments in respect of which. the assessee is not able to explain the nature and source, the same is deemed to be the income of the asses…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 65/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ances, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. XXXX XXX 21. We may also usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala [(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)]. In that case, the assessee had received foreign gifts from one common donor. The payments were made to them by instruments issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective accounts of the assessees by negotiations through bank in India. The evidence indicated that the donor was to receive suitable compensation from the assessees. The…

Chetan Lachmandas Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 386/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychetan Lachmandas Ito, Bhatia, C-309, 3Rd (International बनाम/ Floor, Atul Nagar Tower, Tax)-1(2)(1), Vs. Mathwadas, Ext. Road, Mumbai. Irani Wadi No.3, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aotpb9588F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 13.12.2022 Passed By Ito, International Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai ( In Short ‘ The Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15, Pursuant To The Direction Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) Dated 28.11.2022. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Alongwith Form No.36 Were Revised By The Assessee. The Revised Grounds Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH“C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Chetan Lachmandas ITO, Bhatia, C-309, 3rd (International बनाम/ Floor, Atul Nagar Tower, Tax)-1(2)(1), Vs. Mathwadas, Ext. Road, Mumbai. Irani Wadi No.3, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AOTPB9588F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, CA ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronounceme…

Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 747/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 69C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala, Vs. ITO, Ward-70(1) IPSO Legal H-35, 1st Floor, New Delhi. Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014 PAN AAAPJ3918J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Shri Shayam Sunder, Shri Dishant Seth, Advocates Department by : Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date of 18.05.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Edmond Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 96/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 96/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata.............................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Edmond Finvest Pvt. Ltd....….........................Respondent (Earlier known as Edmond Textiles Pvt. Ltd.) [PAN: AAACE 6908 L] Appearances by: Sh. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. Akkal Dudhwewa…

Rajesh Kumar Damani, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-50(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2187/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 148Section 151Section 234Section 68Section 69C

…ter the AO observes that the matter is to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. Thereafter referring to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohankala 291 ITR 278, he concludes that in view of the above facts and after analysing the information available on record, the AO says that he has reason to believe that the assessee has suppressed his income by using LTCG treating it as exempt to the tune of Rs.2,38,54,750/- which is/are reported as bogus by the Directorate. (which means that as per the report of d…