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)

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Fern Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3390/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

Section 131(1)Section 133Section 68

…with supporting documents and explanation for source of investment. During remand proceedings appellant was ready to produce the principal officers but after receipt of reply u/5.133(6), A.O. did not insist for it. ii. In case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) wherein it was held that: "25. .....The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee have been duly taken into consideration by the authorities below. The transactions though apparent were held to be not real one. May be the money came by way of ba…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

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

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…T [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) 8 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) Dayal Singh & Sons v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 90 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) A credit in the assessee’s books of account, as explained, is itself an evidence against him and, therefore, the same has to be proved as to its nature and source, on the parameters of, as a…

Gopal Swaroop Kishanchand Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6611/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…1 ITA 6611/Mum/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI Before Shri Joginder Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.6611/Mum/2017 (Assessment year: 2010-11) Gopal Swaroop Kishanchand vs ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai Khanna, 501, Kanta Building, Phirozshah Mehta Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 0054 PAN : AAMPK9870G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rakesh Kapoor Respondent by Smt. M Hemalatha Date of hearing 01-05-2018 Date of pronouncement 15-05-2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of…

Ansh Merchandise P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6458/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private Dcit 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 V. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private DCIT 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 v. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCN8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri. Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख /…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM DCIT CIR 3(3)(2) Vs. M/s. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind the M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACT9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ram Tiwari Revenue by Shri Vijay Mehta Date of Hearing 05/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 14/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN (J.M): This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) - 8, Mumbai dated 25/08/2015 for A.Y…

Sohanraj Uttamchand, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Dass, CITFor Respondent: 21.12.2017

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

…evenue in the case CIT vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 neither deal with share market transactions or identical to the facts in the case of the assessee. d) Further the decision in the case CIT vs. Mohanakala by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 291 ITR 278 is not applicable to the case of the assessee because in that case the issue was with respect to addition made under the head cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act towards foreign gifts received from one common donor and the evidence indicated that which was by itself of no consequence. But in the case of the assessee before us the issue is with respect…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Spartacus Farmsp.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3073/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3073/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The I.T.O-8(3)(2), M/S. Spartacus Farms Pvt. Ltd. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, 11-A, Gr. Floor, बनाम/ M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6632 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Ms. Trupti Y. Katale सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar &

Section 68

…n money shown to have received by the assessee from Ms. Rachna Fall Press, NRI". ii. " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s P. Mohankala (291 ITR 278) that mere identification of the said source of funds and the movement of funds through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the said investgor. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the burden of proof to establish that the investor had means &…