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.

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 278)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur vs. Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 236/RPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Ito-3 (4), Raipur Vs Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.09/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Rpr/2017) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agrawal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-I, Raipur, Dated 17.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection To The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds:- 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,35,21,935/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Without Appreciating The Facts On Record?” 2. “Whether Cit(A) Committed An Error In Law In Not Appreciating The Purport Of Provisions Of Sections 68 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 250(4)Section 68

…Ld AO was rightly deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and the is deserves to be upheld. 7. To substantiate claim of the assessee Ld AR has placed copies of following judgments in its case law compilation paper book. On satisfaction u/s.68 i) CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) ii) Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 256 ITR 331 Raj. iii) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 SC iv) CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 SC On discharge of burden u/s 68 v) ITO vs. Smt. Pratima Ashar (2019) 107 taxmann.com 135 MumTrib dt. 06.06.2019 vi) Pawan Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO-2(2), Bilaspur Tax Case No. 24 of2011 Chhattisgarh…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Gadumaria, Raigarh

In the result appeal ITA No

ITA 94/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal & Shri N.C.Gupta, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 131(1)Section 68

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.94/RPR/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) JCIT(OSD), Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs M/s Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Adumaria, Jharsuguda Road, Raipur PAN No. : AABCO 5774 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. AND Cross Objection No.09/RPR/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.94/RPR/2018) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs J…

Shri Shri Sudhir Kumar Jha, Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 90/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 69

…argument that in the present case no money was received by the assessee, only acceptance of credit entry through journal entry, thus provision of section 68 cannot be invoked, Ld AR has submitted the following case laws:- i) CIT vs P. Mohanakala & Ors. (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), PN 42 to 50 of PB, relevant finding on PN 47, para no. 12, as under:- A bare reading of section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by assessees; that such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and that the assessees offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2006/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 68

…essment year, there is no arrant to make any addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 47. The appellant's contentions are considered. In this connection reference is made to the decisii n of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 27 wherein the honorable Supreme Court has decided the scope of the term 'explanation' and heId that it is not adequate to merely provide some token explanation but the explanation should also be found to be reasonable and acceptable by the assessing officer In this connection the following paragraph of the decision is relevant: 14. The question is w…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2005/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 68

…essment year, there is no arrant to make any addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 47. The appellant's contentions are considered. In this connection reference is made to the decisii n of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 27 wherein the honorable Supreme Court has decided the scope of the term 'explanation' and heId that it is not adequate to merely provide some token explanation but the explanation should also be found to be reasonable and acceptable by the assessing officer In this connection the following paragraph of the decision is relevant: 14. The question is w…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 68

…essment year, there is no arrant to make any addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 47. The appellant's contentions are considered. In this connection reference is made to the decisii n of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 27 wherein the honorable Supreme Court has decided the scope of the term 'explanation' and heId that it is not adequate to merely provide some token explanation but the explanation should also be found to be reasonable and acceptable by the assessing officer In this connection the following paragraph of the decision is relevant: 14. The question is w…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2003/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 68

…essment year, there is no arrant to make any addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 47. The appellant's contentions are considered. In this connection reference is made to the decisii n of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 27 wherein the honorable Supreme Court has decided the scope of the term 'explanation' and heId that it is not adequate to merely provide some token explanation but the explanation should also be found to be reasonable and acceptable by the assessing officer In this connection the following paragraph of the decision is relevant: 14. The question is w…

Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

ITA 2002/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2002 To 2006/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13) M/S. Barefoot Resorts & Leisures India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax, 77/43, 2Nd Floor, Chamiers Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai-600 028. Chennai-34. Pan: Aaffb 5380B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Am: This Bunch Of Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 01.06.2018 & Pertain To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012- 13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 68

…essment year, there is no arrant to make any addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 47. The appellant's contentions are considered. In this connection reference is made to the decisii n of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 27 wherein the honorable Supreme Court has decided the scope of the term 'explanation' and heId that it is not adequate to merely provide some token explanation but the explanation should also be found to be reasonable and acceptable by the assessing officer In this connection the following paragraph of the decision is relevant: 14. The question is w…

M/S Aakar Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi vs. ACIT, Cir. - 02, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 33/ALLD/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aakar Housing Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. Circle-2, B-21/62 , Kamachha, M.A. Road, Varanasi-221001, U.P. Varanasi, U.P. Pan:Aahca1616Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…i Singh 68,000/- 2 Mr. Laxmishwar Singh 68,000/- 3 Unverified Advance 54,00,000/- While making aforesaid additions, the AO also relied upon following judicial precedents: a) Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. P. Mohankala , (2007) 291 ITR 278(SC) b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment and order in the case of Rakesh Kalia v. CIT, reported in (2006) 286 ITR 357(Del. HC) c) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment and order in the case of Ram Lal Agarwal v. CIT, reported in (2006) 280 ITR 547 (All. HC) d) Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment and order in the case of Acron Finance P…

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 46ASection 68

…ary powers in disposing of an appeal. "The scope of his power is conterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do". 41. As we can see, CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) deals with the powers of the High Court in interfering with the findings of fact--and concurrent findings, at that by re- appreciating the evidence. The Supreme Court has held in the negative. The Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) has stated that the declaration of law is clear that the power of t…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…Vs. CITI19631 49 ITR 112 (SC):Kale Khan Mohammad Hanit Vs. CITfl9631 50 9 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 ITR 1 (SC): Durga Prasad More (supra);CITVs. Biju Patnaik [19861 160 ITR 674/26 Taxman 324 (SC): Sumati Dayal (supra) and CITVs. P. Mohanakala [20071 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SO. We may further clarify that in proceeding with the matter, we have circumscribed the entire material on record. 4.2 The assessee, to begin with, has nowhere explained as why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which is ascribed to cash-in-hand, and not to any contemporaneous evidence, as cash withdrawn from bank o…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Sreeleathers

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/18/2022HC Calcutta14 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…some illegalities in the assessee’s transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving 4 (1963) 49 ITR 112 5 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) 6 (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) 7 (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) 8 (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) 9 (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 Page 11 of 14 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued…

Bhadanes Hitech Technology Computer Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Nashik

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1289/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ain the nature and source of entries in his books. It is not necessary that the account books themselves should have been rejected for the inference that the credit entry is not established. 6.12 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohan Kala & Others 291 ITR 278 has observed as follows : “15…. When and in what circumstances Section 68 of the Act would come into play? That a bare reading of Section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and sou…

Maruti Nivrutti Navale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1062/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 131Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1062/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Maruti Nivrutti Navale, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Singhad Technical 2(2), Pune. Education Society, Campus Vadgaon (BK), Pune- 411041. PAN : AAIPN0909R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date of hearing : 01.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed a…

Mr. Ratansingh M. Rathod, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT - 32(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1869/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ratansingh M. Rathore V. Acit -32(3) 502, Sushila Apartment Room No. 732, 7Th Floor Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacpr4164L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

…ear, the assessee's claim that it is covered by earlier year judgement is totally uncalled for. • It has been held in several court judgements that payment through bank accounts does not mean they are genuine. In the case of CIT vs Mohanakala, 161 Taxman 169, 291 ITR 278, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking 6 Shri Ratansingh M. Rathore transaction but that itself is of no consequence". Similarly, it was held in 208 ITR 465, CIT vs Precision Finance P Ltd (Calcutta HC): "6. ……. The Tribunal did not apply its mind to the facts…