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 372,269 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

ITTA/125/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Up Bone Mills India Ltd

ITA/2094/2010HC Delhi31 Jan 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 68

…Q reason that in such circumstance, the assessee cannot feign ([) ignorance about the status of these parties. 21. We may also usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanaka/a [(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 assesse…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd

ITA-2093/2010HC Delhi31 Jan 2011
Section 68

…e of the reason that in such circumstance, the assessee cannot feign ignorance about the status of these parties. 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 asses…

CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2093 / 2010HC Delhi31 Jan 2011
Section 68

…e of the reason that in such circumstance, the assessee cannot feign ignorance about the status of these parties. 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 asses…

Rajeev Tandon vs. Assitant Commissioner of Incom

ITA/77/2007HC Delhi13 Jul 2007

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Before Whom He Contended That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Donors Had Been Established & Consequently It Was Submitted That The Assessing Officer Should Not

Section 260ASection 68

…fts could not be said to be genuine. On these facts, we find no reason why a different view should be taken. 6. We may note that very recently, the Supreme Court dealt with a somewhat similar situation in Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Mohanakala, (2007) 291 ITR 278. While dealing with Section 68 of the Act, the Supreme Court held that: (i) There has to be a credit of the amount in the books maintained by the assessee. (ii) Such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year. (iii) The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books, or…

CIT v. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278) — Cited in 525 Judgments | BharatTax