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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 115BBESection 69CSection 133(6)Section 148Section 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionshare application moneyentry operatorunexplained cash creditprincipal commissioner of income-taxincome-tax officersection 131section 69c

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Mohanakala

V E L Software Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1173/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

Section 68

…n has been laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi 214 Taxman 429 dated 07-01-2013 and also in the case of N. Tarika Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. 221 Taxman 14 dated 28-11-2013. 9. We further find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mohan Kala & Others 291 ITR 278 has held as under : 12 VEL Software Limited " 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…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

For Appellant: Shri Karan shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…i) Labh Chandra Bohra vs. ITO [2014] 219 CTR 571 [Rajasthan-HC] xiv) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) xv) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) xvi) In Gem Palace vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 543 (Raj.) xvii) CIT vs. P.Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) xviii) Rollon Containers vs ITO, Hyderabad [2012] xix) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LALIT KUMAR PODDAR (2015) 56 taxmann.com 462/231 Taxman 816 (Delhi) In view of the aforesaid facts and submission, to delete the addition made by the Ld. A.O of Rs.2,48,75,684/- as unexplained addition u/s. 69 of the IT. Act, 1961. II. UNDISCLOSED INVESTME…

Reshmi Sudhakaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं डॉ एम एल मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND Dr. M.L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 353/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Reshmi Sudhakaran, The Income Tax Officer, No.25, Gems Court, v. Non-Corporate Ward 3(2), Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: CQBPS 0008M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreen…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…f the creditors/share applicants  Creditworthiness of the creditors/share applicants, and  Genuineness of the transactions i.e, whether the transaction was through banking channel. 5.3.18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/ 161 Taxman 169 held that the expression 'assessee offers no explanation' means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee.' It further held that the opinion of the AO for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfact…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ssessing Officer relied on the following case law to make the additions: - (i) SumatiDayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC). (ii) Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT (82 ITR 540) (SC). (iii) McDowell & Co. Ltd., Vs. CTO (154 ITR 148) (SC). (iv) CIT vs. P. Mohankala & Others (291 ITR 278 (SC). (v) Shamin M. Bharvani (1TA No.4906/Mum/2011) of Hon'ble ITAT, 'E' Bench, Mumbai. (vi) Hersh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005 of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions for each of the points discussed by the Assessing Officer. Ld.CIT(A) conside…

Kirti M Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7750/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7750/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2013-14) Kirti M. Shah, A/703, Sheetal Dham, Sudha Park, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai 400 077. Pan; Aagps-5048-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

…s discharged his onus in proving genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders and the transaction. The assessee was not required to show source of source. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala, 291 ITR 278(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Dwarakadhish Investments Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Del) 3.1. In respect of ground No.2 of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in making disallowance in respect of interest expenditure. The assessee had received interest @15% on loans and advances and has paid in…

Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, VS. DCIT, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), PAN: AADCB 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. PAN: AADCB 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue by Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel for DR Date of hearing: 12/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 06/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MO…

DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Ysr Dist.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, VS. DCIT, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), PAN: AADCB 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. PAN: AADCB 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue by Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel for DR Date of hearing: 12/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 06/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MO…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3565/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…ns lies on the assessee in whose books of account a sum is found to be credited. The principle has been firmly established by the Apex Court in various judgments, some of which are highlighted as under: -  Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007] 291 ITR 278 / 161 Taxman 169 held that the expression "assessee offers no explanation" means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee.  The law is well-settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an ass…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3564/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…ns lies on the assessee in whose books of account a sum is found to be credited. The principle has been firmly established by the Apex Court in various judgments, some of which are highlighted as under: -  Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007] 291 ITR 278 / 161 Taxman 169 held that the expression "assessee offers no explanation" means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee.  The law is well-settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an ass…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3563/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…ns lies on the assessee in whose books of account a sum is found to be credited. The principle has been firmly established by the Apex Court in various judgments, some of which are highlighted as under: -  Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007] 291 ITR 278 / 161 Taxman 169 held that the expression "assessee offers no explanation" means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee.  The law is well-settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an ass…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3562/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…ns lies on the assessee in whose books of account a sum is found to be credited. The principle has been firmly established by the Apex Court in various judgments, some of which are highlighted as under: -  Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007] 291 ITR 278 / 161 Taxman 169 held that the expression "assessee offers no explanation" means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee.  The law is well-settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an ass…

DCIT - 14(2)(2) vs. M/S Mishal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3561/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 6Section 68

…ns lies on the assessee in whose books of account a sum is found to be credited. The principle has been firmly established by the Apex Court in various judgments, some of which are highlighted as under: -  Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007] 291 ITR 278 / 161 Taxman 169 held that the expression "assessee offers no explanation" means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee.  The law is well-settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an ass…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 1 of 150 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 12.05.2022 DELIVERED ON: 14.06.2022 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA IA NO. GA/2/2022 IN ITAT/6/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FIVE, KOLKATA VERSUS SWATI BAJAJ IA NO. GA/2/2020 (OLD NO: GA/1044/2020) IN ITAT/31/2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA VERSUS D…

Ramesh Chand Investment & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…sh even though most of the persons had bank accounts and they had not entered the transactions through their bank accounts. No substantial question of law arose." The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 is also relevant to the case as the Hon’ble court has held as under: “A bare reading of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that (I) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee ; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (Hi) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation abo…

JCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Prasandi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4647/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 68

…3) 264 ITR 254(Gau). In order to be able to unravel the sinister designs of evasive and manipulative assessees, the Apex Court went by the ratio and standards enunciated in the cases of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT Vs. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278(SC). It would thus be amply clear, on a careful reading of the judgment as a whole, that the Apex Court did not spell out any fresh test or any new mode or manner of verification of share capital u/s 68 of the Act. It is most noteworthy that in a way, the Apex Court in the said judgment stood by the mandate in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.…

ITO 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Aniata Dyes & Intermediates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6976/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2008-09
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…of the assessment order. 6. Thereafter from the above the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. He also referred to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in P. CIT Vs. Mohankala (291 ITR 278). He concluded as under :- “Further in this ease, during the course of assessment proceedings for the A.Y 2009-10, the inspector of this charge and of the office of the O'.T U&C1I. Kolkata were directed to verify the parties in their respective premise. None of the parties could be located in the given address. At the same time, the assessee comp…

Shri Krishna S. Chamankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 24(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7125/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjeet Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7125/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Krishna S. Chamankar Acit – 24(2), R. No. 613, 6Th Floor, Piramal A-1001, Aditi C.H.S.L, Svp Nagar, बिाम/ Versova Telex, Andheri (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 012 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…y the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act is also not sustainable because the assessee has submitted the proof of source of cash deposited. The appellant relied on the following case laws in support of his contentions: • Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 • RoshanDi Haiti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) • A. Govindarajulumudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) • Sikri& Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT 106 ITR 682, 688 CIT vs. KulwantKaur 121 ITR 914, CIT vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables P. Ltd. 115 ITR 408, 414. 4.1.4 After carefully going through the submissions of the appellant as well as the vie…

Ninaidevi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1787/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 115BSection 12ASection 2(24)(iia)

…an draw an adverse inference against the assessee. The reference can be made to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349, (ii) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, 72 ITR 807 and (iii) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala, 291 ITR 278. In present case, it is highly improbable that an organization can receive donation of identical amount of Rs.4,501/- from total 4851 persons. Therefore, it is fit case to apply the test of human probabilities. No pleadings were made before us as to how it was prevented from filing the correct details before the lower authorities as well as befor…

DCIT- 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Opera Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5606/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…nation offered 8 M/s. Opera Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing officer, not satisfactory." 6.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala 12007] 161 Taxman 169/291 ITR 278, while considering the scope of Section 68, 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 assessees…