What is CIT v. Piara Singh authority for?

When dealing with unaccounted transactions of purchase and sale, including those from an illegal business, only the profit or income earned from such sales can be assessed as undisclosed income and subjected to tax, not the entire sale proceeds.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Piara Singh?

95 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Piara Singh (124 ITR 40), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Piara Singh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 145(3), Section 133A, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Piara Singh (124 ITR 40)

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

…distinction must however, be drawn between an infraction of the law committed in the carrying on of a lawful business and in infraction of the law committed in a business inherently unlawful and constituting a normal Incident of it [CIT vs. Piara Singh(1930) 124 ITR 40(SC)) Thus, if expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of carrying on the business, that is, to enable a person to carry on and ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 19– earn profit in that business, it would be treated a permissible deduction. It has to be a commercial loss in trade…

Sri Sravan Kumar Neela, Nalgonda vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

…– which was as unexplained investment u/s. 69A, and, in any case, sought deduction for the loss on account of its confiscation. The Tribunal, distinguishing the decisions relied upon, i.e., CIT v. Kothari (SC) [1971] 82 ITR 794 (SC); CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC); CIT v. Shri Ram Chander [1986] 159 ITR 689 (P&H), upheld the Revenue’s case. The income, it opined, was on facts not the profits or gains of the assessee’s illegal business. It was, therefore, rightly assessed as deemed income u/s. 69A, and there was no question of allowance of deduction for the loss on its confiscation. This was upheld in f…

Sri Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni, Guntur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

…– which was as unexplained investment u/s. 69A, and, in any case, sought deduction for the loss on account of its confiscation. The Tribunal, distinguishing the decisions relied upon, i.e., CIT v. Kothari (SC) [1971] 82 ITR 794 (SC); CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC); CIT v. Shri Ram Chander [1986] 159 ITR 689 (P&H), upheld the Revenue’s case. The income, it opined, was on facts not the profits or gains of the assessee’s illegal business. It was, therefore, rightly assessed as deemed income u/s. 69A, and there was no question of allowance of deduction for the loss on its confiscation. This was upheld in f…

Kapil Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 250Section 57

…tainted with illegality is assessable; even in an illegal business it is the profits, and not the gross receipts, that are taxable CIT Vs. Kothari 82 ITR 794, 801-802 (SC), CIT Vs. Tinplate 207 ITR 72, Nilgiri Finance Vs. CIT 213 ITR 384, CIT Vs. Piara Singh 124 ITR 40 and 5 Shri Kapil Gupta, Jaipur. various cases of High Courts. Where the entire business of the assessee is illegal, and that income is sought to be taxed by the Income tax Officer, then the expenditure incurred in the illegal activities will also have to be allowed as deduction, CIT Vs. Panchganga 250 ITR 772. A breach of the bye-law by a co-opera…

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…ed for any purpose which is an offence was deemed not to have been incurred for the purpose of business or incidental to it. The decision in Dr. T.A. Qureshi vs. CIT[2006] 287 ITR 547 (SC) was held as perincuriam, and the decision in CIT vs. Piara Singh[1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC) as no longer good law in view of the decision in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. (supra) and Explanation 1 to section 37(1). The similarity with the instant case is striking. The assessee incurs expenditure by way of bank interest & charges in the conduct of his illegal business, the pawning of mortgage of gold of others by him being an ill…

M/S. Standard Charted Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Sp. RG 27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 9045/MUM/2004[1991-1992]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2023AY 1991-1992

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM) I.T.A. No. 9045/Mum/2004 (A.Y. 1991-92) Vs. DCIT, Special Range Standard Chartered Bank Taxation Department 27(International Taxation) 23-25, M.G. Road Scindia House N.M. Marg 3rd Floor, Fort Ballard Pier Mumbai-40 001. Mumbai-400 038. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 8937/Mum/2004 (A.Y. 1991-92) Vs. Standard Chartered Bank DDIT(IT)-2(1) Room No. 120, 1st Floor 4th Floor, New Excelsior Scindia House, N.M. Marg Building, A.K. Naik Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400 038.…

The DDIT (I.T)2(1) vs. M/S. Standard Chartered Bank

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8937/MUM/2004[1991-1992]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2023AY 1991-1992

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM) I.T.A. No. 9045/Mum/2004 (A.Y. 1991-92) Vs. DCIT, Special Range Standard Chartered Bank Taxation Department 27(International Taxation) 23-25, M.G. Road Scindia House N.M. Marg 3rd Floor, Fort Ballard Pier Mumbai-40 001. Mumbai-400 038. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 8937/Mum/2004 (A.Y. 1991-92) Vs. Standard Chartered Bank DDIT(IT)-2(1) Room No. 120, 1st Floor 4th Floor, New Excelsior Scindia House, N.M. Marg Building, A.K. Naik Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400 038.…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (2006)(287 ITR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amoun…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (2006)(287 ITR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amoun…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (2006)(287 ITR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amoun…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…ness loss. The said principle has been explained in the below mentioned decisions:- Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT [2006 287 ITR 547 (SC) CIT v. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar [1972] 86 ITR 607 (SC) CIT v. S.C. Kothari [1971] 82 ITR 794 (SC) CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC) CIT v. T.C. Reddy [2013] 356 ITR 516 (AP) Ramachandar Shivanarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC) Bipinchandra K. Bhatia v. DCIT, Tax Appeal No.107 of 2004 (Guj) 30. Though there is no specific provision providing for deduction of ‘business loss’ by virtue of provisions of the expression ‘profits & gains’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss i…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…ness loss. The said principle has been explained in the below mentioned decisions:- Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT [2006 287 ITR 547 (SC) CIT v. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar [1972] 86 ITR 607 (SC) CIT v. S.C. Kothari [1971] 82 ITR 794 (SC) CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC) CIT v. T.C. Reddy [2013] 356 ITR 516 (AP) Ramachandar Shivanarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC) Bipinchandra K. Bhatia v. DCIT, Tax Appeal No.107 of 2004 (Guj) 30. Though there is no specific provision providing for deduction of ‘business loss’ by virtue of provisions of the expression ‘profits & gains’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss i…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT

Section 145Section 28Section 5

…Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (2006)(287 ITR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amoun…