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

ACIT 24 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S King Metal Works, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 894/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodacit-24(2) Vs. King Metal Works Room No.613, 6Th Floor A-6, Nanddham Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Indul.Estate, Marol Maroshi Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Road, Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 059

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…n 12% made by the AO, pertaining to Hawala Purchases, without appreciating the fact that payments made through cheque would not prove the genuineness of transaction and the same principal is upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs P Mohan Kala (291 ITR 278(SC). 3. "On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting he addition at 12% made by the AO, without considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of bogus purchases dated 16.01.2017 in the case of N K Proteins vs DCIT (2017) (84 Taxmann.com 195)(SC)." 4. "On the facts and circumstance of the…

Bhagwatiben Vinodkumar Surani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1)., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1309/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

…4 ITR 807 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanit v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); Durga Prasad More (supra); CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674/26 Taxman 324 (SC); Sumati Dayal (supra); and CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SC) 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 Bhagwatiben Vinodkumar Surani vs. ITO Asst.Year – 201…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…ed with cash credit under section 68. 24. The AO has made addition by invoking the provision of section 68. The precondition for invoking section 68 is that there has to be credit of amount in the books maintained by the assessee. [CIT vs P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)]. The section is applicable only when a sum is found credited in the books of the assessee [Rakesh Kalia v. CIT, (2006) 286 ITR 357 (Dei.)]. In the case of assessee neither any sum has been credited in the books of accounts or in the bank account even for a single day throughout the year which is evident from the peak analysis of bank accoun…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT (1992)198 ITR 147 (Ker.); CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 495(Cal.). 5.8 Section 68 of the Act was also considered by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). The Apex Court held as follows:- "The question is what is the true nature and scope of section 68 of the Act? When and in what circumstances would section 68 of the Act come into play? 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…

A.N.Muthiah, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-21(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2188/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ccepted to be correct. xi) In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases: 1. CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) 2. Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with principles of preponderance of probabilities has held that certain transactions cannot be just accepted on the face value and one has to analyse the preponderance of probabilities based on all the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration. xii) In case the contention of the appella…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 715/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 706, 707 & 709/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Singhal The DCIT बनाम 3- Industrial Area, Phase-1 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ANRPS7985C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Smt. Aarti Sin…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 713/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 706, 707 & 709/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Singhal The DCIT बनाम 3- Industrial Area, Phase-1 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ANRPS7985C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Smt. Aarti Sin…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 712/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 706, 707 & 709/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Singhal The DCIT बनाम 3- Industrial Area, Phase-1 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ANRPS7985C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Smt. Aarti Sin…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 707/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 706, 707 & 709/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Singhal The DCIT बनाम 3- Industrial Area, Phase-1 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ANRPS7985C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Smt. Aarti Sin…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 706/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 706, 707 & 709/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Singhal The DCIT बनाम 3- Industrial Area, Phase-1 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ANRPS7985C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Smt. Aarti Sin…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 709/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 706, 707 & 709/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Singhal The DCIT बनाम 3- Industrial Area, Phase-1 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ANRPS7985C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Smt. Aarti Sin…

M/S Sree Lakshmi Silks vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 26

ITA/179/2010HC Karnataka29 Jan 2020

Bench: It In Relation To Cash Credit Entries In The Books Of The Appellant On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

Section 143(1)Section 260Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI I.T.A. NO.179 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/S SREE LAKSHMI SILKS REP. BY ITS PARTNER: SRI. SURYANARAYANA SWAMY NO.30, RAMANNAPET J.M. ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-560002. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Sri. M. LAVA, ADV.) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1) UNIT BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560027. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A.…

Gaurav Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 60 (5 ), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B–[SMC]”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. PAN : AGEPA3001F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R.; Assessee by: N O N E. Date of Hearing 31/10/2019 Date of pronouncement 27/01/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Inc…

Shailesh Jaiswal, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, - Katni

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

ITA 166/JAB/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) 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 v. P. Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) The addition, however, is to be restricted to Rs. 2,79,000, i.e., the aggregate amount of the cash credits. The balance cash deposited (i.e., Rs. 21,000), is sourced from the assesses’ cash book qua which the Revenue has not made any observation entitling it to draw an adverse inference. We decide accordingly, and assessee gets part relief.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2005-06 ITO Vs. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Ward-14(4) 7th Floor, New Delhi. Meridian Commercial Tower Windsor Place, Janpath New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Date of Hearing 16/10/2019 Date of 10 /01/2020 pronouncement O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by order dated 15th J…

Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6883/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6883/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Pushpa N Dhanania The Income Tax Officer 24, Saraswati Sadan, 1 St Ward 17(2)(5) बनाम/ Floor, 113, Keshavji Naik 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumba9-400 009 Road, Opp. Churchgate Vs. Railway Station Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Adwpd7778D अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Haresh P. Shah, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ards sale but such credits were not considered for claim of deduction under s. 80hhC. Hence on the basis of surrounding circumstances and considering the decision of Hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Ors. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 20: (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). The Tribunal held that Revenue has rightly taxed the receipt. In Arvind M. Kariya vs. ACIT (2013) 153 TTJ 422 (Mum) it was held as follows: Income tax proceedings- Burden of proof- Income tax proceedings are civil proceedings Degree of proof required is by preponderance of probabilities. vi. on aspect of 12.5% GP rate, following is noted: I…

ITO - 31 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narendra R. Bohra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6371/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer- 31(2)(4) V. Shri Narendra R. Bohra 105, C-13, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Prop. M/S. Veena Industries Bandra Kurla Complex 203, 2Nd Floor, Amar Business Centre Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan: Aaapb7696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Patni

For Appellant: Shri Suresh PatniFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer- 31(2)(4) v. Shri Narendra R. Bohra 105, C-13, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Prop. M/s. Veena Industries Bandra Kurla Complex 203, 2nd Floor, Amar Business Centre Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai – 400 014 PAN: AAAPB7696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Patni Department by : Shri R. Bhoopathi Date of Hearing : 05.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Akshay Commercial Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6338/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 254(2)Section 68

…very meager resources is not probable. 1.2 Ld. CIT(A) ought to have examined the issue from the point of view of “human probability” as the entry through bank account is not a conclusive proof as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278(SC):- “the transactions though apparent were held to be not real one. May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequences.” [B]. At the outset, Learned Authorized Representative of the assessee brought to our notice, at the time of hearing, that tax effect in…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Apoorva Leasing Finance and Investments Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6239/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 254(2)Section 68

…very meager resources is not probable. 1.2 Ld. CIT(A) ought to have examined the issue from the point of view of “human probability” as the entry through bank account is not a conclusive proof as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278(SC):- “the transactions though apparent were held to be not real one. May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequences.” [B]. At the outset, it was brought to the notice by us, at the time of hearing that tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000./-.…

ITO 31 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashok S. Vakharia HUF, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3223/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69C

…roceedings. In the above background, it was concluded that the plea was not bona-fide and there was no violation of principle of natural justice as alleged by the assessee. 3.5 In the background of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s P.Mohankala & Ors. [291 ITR 278] and also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Naresh K. Pahuja V/s ITAT [375 ITR 526], it was held that payments through banking channel, simpliciter, would not establish the genuineness of the transactions and the primary onus casted upon assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions remained undischarged. The strength was also…