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

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1725/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 68

…n of income and the assessments are completed in those cases. In such a situation the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following cases in support of the above contentions: • CIT Vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278; • Smt. Shanta Devi Vs. CIT 171 ITR 532 (P&H); • DCIT Vs. M/s Jogia Properties Ltd. [2022] (10 TMI 1047 ITAT, Mumbai); • DCIT Vs. Basant R. Aggarwal [2023] (5) TMI 634-ITAT- Ahmedabad. 5. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in assessee’s own case for the AY 2017-18 the Tribunal in ITA 1018/Del/2023 dated 31.01.2025 accepted the contention of…

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ITA No.108/AGR/2025 ITO Vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.108/AGR/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2022-23) Income Tax Officer-1 Morena, (M.P.) Shri Agrasen Logistics, In front of Old Rajput Vs. Hotel, A.B. Road, Morena-476001 (M.P.) (Appellant) PAN-AEIFS3236E (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sudhir Sehgal Adv. & Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA Department by Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 21/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal i…

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 205/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…] 241 ITR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be SHRI MANHENDRA SINGH NARUKA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is wellsettled, the onus of proving…

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 204/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…] 241 ITR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be SHRI MANHENDRA SINGH NARUKA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is wellsettled, the onus of proving…

Akshat Loyalka, Jaipur vs. Rjn-C-(101)(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1019/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 5Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No. 1019/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Sh. Akshat Loyalka, D-133, Durga Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1, Jaipur./RJN-C-(101)(1) अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABLPL1129K निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Garg…

Ashok Bricks Industries Private Limited, Belpahar R S vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela Circle

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कटक पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री संजय शमाु, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 182/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ashok Bricks Industries Private Asst. Commissioner of Limited Vs. Income Tax (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCA6930F Appearances: Assessee represented by : None (Adjournment appln. filed). Department represented by : S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : May 14th,…

Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

…ce to the material on record and application of mind in sin qua non for forming the opinion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel (Individual) vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 15– v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169/291 ITR 278. In the present case, there is total lack of application of mind, the Assessing Officer had not formed the opinion objectively with reference to any material on record and is merely based on the surmises and conjectures. We fail to understand as to why the Assessing Officer, having rightly taken note of the correct legal position governing the cr…

ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Varshaben Dhirajbhai Koradiya, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1798/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member ITA No: 1798/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The ACIT, Varshaben Dhirajbhai GNR Circle, Koradiya Gandhinagar Vs 2954, Juna Gunj Bazar, Thakorwas, Tharad Gujarat-385565 PAN: ABNPK6583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue Represented: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.D.R. Assessee Represented: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.R. Date of hearing : 06-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 23-05-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by…

Trilok Chand Jaiswal, Sakti vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Bilaspur, Vyapar Vihar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 180/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Trilok Chand Jaiswal Main Road, Near Santoshi Mandir, Sakti Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh-495 689 Pan: Aewpj9961R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kayarwa, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priynaka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 68

…dent from the assessment order, that all the observations of the Assessing Officer are based on examination of documents available on record, appreciation of facts and surrounding circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 clearly held that in case where explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of sums found credited in the books of account is not satisfactory then same would constitute prima-facie evidence against the assessee. In such backdrop of facts and respectfully following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, addition wi…

Ajeet Kumar Rampuria, Tonk vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Tonk

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

ITA 44/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 44/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Ajeet Kumar Rampuria ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s Ajay Arts, Ward 7(2), Mahaveer Chock, Tonk Tonk LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGPR 3327 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Jhanwar, C.A jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. An…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The aforesaid provisions are nothing but recognition of board principles of common law governing the issue under consideration. 14. In CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278 1 (SC), the assessee had received foreign gifts from one common donor. The payments were made by instruments issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective account of the assessee by negotiation through a bank in India. Most of the cheques, in that case, sent from abroad were drawn on the Citibank, NA Singapore. The Assessing Officer held…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The aforesaid provisions are nothing but recognition of board principles of common law governing the issue under consideration. 14. In CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278 1 (SC), the assessee had received foreign gifts from one common donor. The payments were made by instruments issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective account of the assessee by negotiation through a bank in India. Most of the cheques, in that case, sent from abroad were drawn on the Citibank, NA Singapore. The Assessing Officer held…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The aforesaid provisions are nothing but recognition of board principles of common law governing the issue under consideration. 14. In CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278 1 (SC), the assessee had received foreign gifts from one common donor. The payments were made by instruments issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective account of the assessee by negotiation through a bank in India. Most of the cheques, in that case, sent from abroad were drawn on the Citibank, NA Singapore. The Assessing Officer held…

Rudramukhi Vintrade Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2317/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Rs 1.48 cr is given. 4. The request for cross examination of the accommodation entry provider was not considered necessary by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the judicial pronouncements in the cases mentioned below: i) CIT v. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iii) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) I.T.A. No.: 2317/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rudramukhi Vintrade Ltd. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly concluded as under: “7.4 It is therefore obligatory on the part of the asse…

Padmanabhan Sriramulu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2963/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2963/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Padmanabhan Sriramulu, The Assistant Commissioner Of 77/1, Thirupalli Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Chennai – 600 079. Bsnl Tower Ii, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Abhps-7297-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…t and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly the tax was calculated as per section 115BBE of IT Act. 7.2.2 With respect to source of cash deposit and credit entries, various courts have held 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.” Supreme Court in case of A.GovindarajuluMudaliar v.CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) held that “The burden to prove the ge…

Clive Richard Butterfield, Lucknow vs. ITO- 3(1), Lucknow-New, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…I.T.A. No.214/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.214/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 Clive Richard Butterfield, Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), L-634, Indra Lok, Kanpur Road, Lucknow-New Krishna Nagar, Lucknow. PAN:BFBPB6888Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Note Respondent by Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi Addl. CIT (D.R.) O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.214/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 17/02/20…

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…] 241 ITR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is wellsettled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the as…

Kusum Yadav, Indore vs. ITO 1(2), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 518/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 263Section 54BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE. BEFORE SH. BAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.518/Ind/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Kusum Yadav, 573, Near Rajendra Nagar, Dutta Nagar, Indore, M.P. [PAN:AGAPY2615B] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, 1(2), Indore. (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by Sh. S. S. Solanki, AR Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Das Gupta, J.M This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act, 1961…

Ashok Gupta HUF, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off for

ITA 52/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 56(2)(ix)

…es and artificially created document created by the appellant along with the help of the other party specially to avoid the legitimate taxation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC)[15-05-2007] has held as under: "May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence." Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati)/[2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 635 (Gauhati) [02-…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2821/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…ined cash credit and hence deemed to be the assessee’s income eligible to tax which is supported by the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgements which are discussed in succeeding paragraph. (I) In the case of CIT v. P.Mohanakala[2007] 161 Taxman 169 / 291 ITR 278 (SC) ) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1, has made observation which is reproduced as below 3.11 As held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (1995AIR 2109) the fact should be examined by considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human…