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 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 372,569 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 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 115BBE Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 148 Section 69A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor source of source addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction share application money entry operator unexplained cash credit principal commissioner of income-tax income-tax officer section 131 section 69c

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Mohanakala

Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 2053/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…

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Ajay Bakliwal, Kota

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in

ITA 1413/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1413/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 ACIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Ajay Bakliwal C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh Bari, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7775 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearin

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…unding circumstances and human probabilities. 3. Unsubstantiated Withdrawals: • The assessee failed to substantiate that "30,00,000/- was withdrawn specifically for business expenses or retained as claimed. • Judicial precedents (P Mohanakala v. CIT [(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)]) establish that unexplained cash or transactions must be substantiated with credible evidence. 4. Applicability of Section 69A: • As per Section 69A, unexplained cash is deemed income. The AO rightly taxed the addition under Section 115BBE. 5. Incomplete Explanation: 16 ACIT v. Ajay Bakliwal • The assessee claimed that "30,00,000/- was…

Prakash Chand Varindani, Jaipur vs. ACIT Certal Cirlce-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Soni, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1146/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Prakash Chand Varindani, SCH, Surajpole Anaj Mandi, Surajpole Mandi, Galta Gate, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Commissioner Appeals 4, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABWPV4616J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Abhishek So…

Sh. Trilok Chand Sain, Dausa vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1264/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144rSection 148Section 250Section 263

…ransactions and Taxability in Real Owner’s Hands 1. CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)  The Supreme Court held that tax authorities are entitled to look beyond the apparent ownership to determine the real owner. 2. CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)  The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where transactions lack credibility, an adverse inference is justified. 8 Shri Trilok Chand Sain, Dausa. 3. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that he is not the real owner if found in possession of assets. 4. Non-Cooperation Justifies Adverse In…

Satish Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 1526/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, C.A. (Thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 127Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…pellant has failed to discharge this burden, and no supporting documentation, credible evidence, or logical explanation has been provided to explain the large cash deposits. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) are applicable here, wherein the Court held that if the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be unsatisfactory, the amount so credited may be deemed to be the income of the assessee, and no further burden lies on the Revenue to prove the source of such deposits. In conclusion, the appellant has been unable to provide any valid jus…

Asstt. Commissioner of Inocme Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Sudhir Ramswaroop Sarda, Nagpur

ITA 103/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 10(38)Section 68

…SHRI SUDHIR RAMSWAROOP MUNDRA ITA no.103/Nag./2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.103/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Appellant Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur Respondent Shri Sudhir Ramswaroop Mundra 20/3, Piyadashini Colony RTO, Giripeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN - ACWPM7113L v/s Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 12/02/2025 Date of Order – 21/03/2025 PER K.M. ROY, Α.Μ. ORDER By this appeal, the assessee has challenged t…

Pooja Grover, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251Section 69A

…018] 258 Taxman 160 (SC), Pavankumar M. Sanghvi. Income Tax Officer [2018] 404 ITR 601 (Gujarat) (iv) [2014] 221 Taxman 143 (Andhra Pradesh), Gayatri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer (v) [2015] 375 ITR 123 (Calcutta) CIT vs. Maithan International (vi) [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala 7. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. As regards the first creditor i.e. Shri Umang Grover (husband of the assessee) the assessee had submitted bank account of Mr. Umang Grover and ledger account from her own books. However, the assessee has failed to produce copy of IT…

DCIT-27(2), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pyramid Infratech Co., Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…monstrably perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 9 Mr. Mohanty's reliance on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India and reported in (2007) 291 ITR 278 is apposite to the extent of the legal principle. The legal principle and heavily relied upon, according to Mr. Mohanty, is that the Court must examine every single aspect and by a proper process. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee may be t…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/530/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

…n be used against him by holding that it is a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably.” 12.2. In CIT v. P. Mohanakala [CIT v. P. Mohanakala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 : (2007) 291 ITR 278] this Court held that: (SCC p. 28, paras 16, 19 & 25 : ITR pp. 278-79) 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 (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanat…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/531/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.411/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ……………. Respondent 469, Poonam Villa, New Colony Nagpur 440 013 PAN – AATPH2594R Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 21/01/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order date…

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

…f Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801). xiii) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction through banking channel is not always genuine as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mohan Kala & Others (291 ITR 278) xiv) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction through bank is executed to make the otherwise colourable transaction appeal genuine xv) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if documentary evidence is produced, the sam…

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…] 241 TTR 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 CII 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…

Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 206/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Office No.64,3Rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1137H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vs. CIT, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. NFAC, Office No.64,3rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. PAN/GIR No. AABCV1137H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing 13.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 26.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, passed u/s…

Hindvee Small Finance Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

…e total income in the Profit and Loss A/c which cannot be brought to tax again, as cash credit, u/s 68 of the Act 61. 32. Regarding applicability of section 68 of the Act 61, we rely on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala reported in 291 ITR 278 while dealing with scope of provision of section 68 of the Act the Hon’ble Court held that: “the opinion of the AO that the explanation furnished by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of materials and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…] 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 well settled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the a…

Sh. Gaurang Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.A. (Thr. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-VH)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…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. 1514/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Sh. Gaurang Agarwal Plot No. 194, Chelon Ka Rasta Jaleb Chowk, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur. बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3), Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AOXPA0971P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P. C. P…

Pr. Commissioner Oflncome Tax Delhi - 5 vs. Mrs. Rowena Sharma

ITA/1220/2018HC Delhi11 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80

…by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2025 at 12:07:39 ITA 1220/2018 & ITA 1222/2018 Page 8 of 10 12.2. In CIT v. P. Mohanakala [CIT v. P. Mohanakala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 : (2007) 291 ITR 278] this Court held that: (SCC p. 28, paras 16, 19 & 25 : ITR pp. 278-79) 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 (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanat…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 (Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2017-18) Dollar holding Pvt. Ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 32, OM Tower, 15 th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Aaykar Bhavan, J.L. Nehru Road, Poorva, Kolkata-700107, West Vs. Kolkata-700071, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADC7708B Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, AR Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR Date of hearing: 18.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 11.02.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are appeals pre…

Deputy Commissoenr of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C