How many judgments cite CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra (301 ITR 404), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 144, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 133(6).

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

301 ITR 404High Court2008#2480 most cited

What is CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra authority for?

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra · 301 ITR 404 · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained money · earlier assessment year · brought forward balance · subsequent assessment year · addition u/s 68 · sundry creditors

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 144 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 44af section 262 trade creditors inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 non application of mind source of source addition under section 68 section 263(1)lack of enquiry section 194a sundry creditors

Judgments citing CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SINGH,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground of appeal No

ITA 376/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, C. A

Section 144Section 250Section 44A

…, as existing in departmental 17. record (as referred to by the AO in his order) is reproduced for ready reference: Before concluding the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan 18. High Court in the case of CIT v Parmeshwar Bohra reported 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan) [2008], in support of his claim that a carry forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash generated during the relevant year. 19. In support of his contention he further relied on the following tribunal decisions of the coordinate bench: “(i) The Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedbad in the case of ITO v. Babubhai Kh…

ARYAN PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Aryan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-2(1), Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shantipally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagca2975B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…ch are received in the earlier assessment years and therefore, cannot be brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj), wherein Hon'ble Court held as under:- “4. On the merit of the additions made in the income of the assessee, there is a clear finding and above which there is no dispute that the amount added in the income of the assessee as unexplained investment or cash credit in the assessment year 1993-94 was the same amount which was credited in the b…

SATABDI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2),, KOLKATA

ITA 1787/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Satabdi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 10(2) Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shanti Pally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs8130L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…e cannot treated as cash credit during the year and therefore, cannot be brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj), wherein Hon'ble Court held as under:- “4. On the merit of the additions made in the income of the assessee, there is a clear finding and above which there is no dispute that the amount added in the income of the assessee as unexplained investment or cash credit in the assessment year 1993-94 was the same amount which was credited in the b…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C R BUILDING DELHI vs. VIRAT PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

…payments have been made through banking channels in earlier years and the same have been recorded in the Books of accounts of earlier years. For this the appellant had relied upon various judgments of various High Courts. (i) CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra. (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj.), (ii) CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Limited (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del), (iii) Ivan Singh vs. ACIT, (2020) 116 taxmann.com 499 (Bom)(HC), (iv) Rita Stephen Pinto vs. ITO 19(2)(2), ITA No. 1219/Mum/2013 Relying upon the decisions as mentioned above, the addition of Rs.1,21,68,000/- is deleted and appeal of the appellant is allowed. 6.2.…

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nnot be subjected to tax u/s 68 in subsequent years. The following decisions are quoted in support :- (1) Kohinoor EnterpsiesVs. CIT 410 ITR 153 (2) ACIT Vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric P. Ltd (2024) 460 ITR 258 (Chattisgarh HC) (3) CIT Vs. ParmeshwarBohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan HC) 2. Rs. 13,30,000 credited on 01/04/2017 It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings that Shri Ram Chandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd was a creditor in the books of accounts of the assessee firm under the head "sundry creditors". A sum of Rs. 13,30,000/- was payable by the firm to Ram Chandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. In thi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

ITA 769/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.769/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Dhule Zilha Parishad Karmachari Dhule Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Dhule, Vs. Nagai Colony, Shirrpur, Dhule – 424001 PAN : AAAAD3792R अपीलार्थी / प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Appellant Assessee by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 25-11-2024 Date of 28-01-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA,…

NEHA WADHWA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. C M Birla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 68

…e of Rs.883800 is well explained therefore there was no reason for learned AO to tax it u/s 68. I may add that Rs.873500/- is my opening balance meaning thereby it was taxed in earlier years. As held by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in C.I.T. VsParmeshwarBohra 301 ITR 404 (Raj.) earlier years carry forward balance can not be taxed in current year. As amount of Rs.873500 credited in current years books relates to earlier years outstanding being well explained does not attract provisions of section 68 and can not be taxed as unexplained cash credit in view of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision.” 8. There was no…

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. PONNAMBALAM KRISHNAN, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 655/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala,SR-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40Section 68

…rovisions of section 68 cannot be invoked for the 7 C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 opening balance coming out from the previous year. A reference can be made to the following judgments: (i) Kohinoor Enterprises Vs. ACIT 410 ITR 153 (J & K) (ii) CIT Vs. Parmeshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404 (Raj) 18. In the above cases, it has been unanimously held that provisions of section 68 can only be applied for the current year credits. Therefore, we affirm the view of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.91,32,966/-. 19. So far as the remaining credits of Rs.7,43,028/-, we remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for examini…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…s, it was not open for the CIT (Appeals) to confirm the addition of the amount of" 1,53,48,850/- on the ground that the assessee could not produce sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions which were undertaken in the year 1984-85." iv) 301 ITR 404 (Raj) CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra v) 349 ITR 260 (All) CIT vs. Raghuraji Agro Industries (P) Ltd. vi) 45 taxmann.com 441 (Guj) CIT vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 71 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.1925/Del/2013 Kamal Industry, HUF vs. DCIT ii) ITA No. 1946/D/2010 AY 2000-01 dated…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

JAYEM REALTY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMM. OF INCOME TAX-1, MUMBAI

ITA 2216/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…rest of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263. …” In support of its contention, the assessee relied on certain judicial pronouncements including CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2009) 183 Taxman 277(Delhi), CIT vs. Prarmeshwar Bohra, [(2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj)], Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj HC), CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd vs 394 ITR 680 (Bom), CIT vs. Apeak Infotech 88 Taxmann.com 695 (Bom HC), ITO VIS Arogya Bharti Health Park Pvt Ltd ITA No.2943/ Mum/2014. Etc. Page No. 5 Jayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., 5. After considering the…

M/S. SUMIT GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RAIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 70/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. C/O Kanha Electricals & Electronics, Nanhu Nagar, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Kirodimalnagar, Raigargh (C.G.) Pan : Aaocs8271J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…sessment years, hence the addition of Rs. 2,26,41,500/- (4,13,41,500 — 1,87,00,000) cannot be made to the income of this assessment year. The Id AR further submitted that in view of hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v Parmeshwar Bohra [2008] 301 ITR 404 the opening credit balance cannot be added to the income of the assessee by applying the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) Whether the assessee has received share application of Rs. 2,26,41,500/- in assessment year prior to assessment year 2014-15 or not is a matter of verification. Accordingly, the AO is directed to veri…

WINNER DIAMOND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), DELHI

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

ITA 1997/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Winner Diamond Tools Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, T-31, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.2, Circle-27(2), Manish Global Mall, Sector-22, Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi-110077. Pan-Aaacw0184G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hari Krishan, Ca Respondent By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Winner Diamond Tools Pvt.Ltd., vs ACIT, T-31, 3rd Floor, Plot No.2, Circle-27(2), Manish Global Mall, Sector-22, Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi-110077. PAN-AAACW0184G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Hari Krishan, CA Respondent by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), Delhi-9 dat…

ARIHANT PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 474/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 474/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arihant Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata (PAN: AAKCA 0589 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 01.08.2023 क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 22.08.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Ms. Sonam Bajoria, CA "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For t…

MESERS S R INGOSTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAIPUR

In the result Revised Ground no 4 of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.04/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) M/S S R Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Cc-1, Raipur House No.16, Opp.Cg Gramin Bank, Choubey Colony, Raipur Pan No. :Aaics 5559 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi Jain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi JainFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…der these circumstances, the A.O. was not justified in making the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act and as such no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal which has endorsed the decision of the CIT(A)." 13 ii. In CIT v. Parameshwr Bohra 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan) it was held in para (5) of the order: ‘(5) On the merit of the additions made in the income of the assessee, there is a clear finding, and about which there is no dispute, that the amount added in the income of the assessee as unexplained investment or cash credit in the A.Y. 1993-94 was the same amount which was credited in the book…

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-26(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI DEBASHIS ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 226/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income, Shri Debashis Roy Circle – 26(1), Kolkata Vill – Vijayganj Bazar Vs P.O. Bhangar 24, Paraganas (South) P.S. Kashipur Pin - 743502 Pan : Aoppr3859H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/R Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/11/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Is Against The Deletion Of An Addition Of Rs. 4,19,07,168/- By The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Added By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act To The Income Of The Assesse On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Received During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

…। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 226/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt. Commissioner of Income, Shri Debashis Roy Circle – 26(1), Kolkata Vill – Vijayganj Bazar Vs P.O. Bhangar 24, Paraganas (South) P.S. Kashipur Pin - 743502 PAN : AOPPR3859H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/R Revenue by : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/09/…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 425/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar. 3.3. That the addition of alleged peak balance of Rs.9,18,54,176/- on protective basis is liable to be deleted as the same has not been shown to be credited during the AY 2006-07. Aspect of opening balance has not been considered. Refer 301 ITR 404 (Raj) CIT vs Parmeshwar Bohra. 3.4. That the said addition as made of Rs 9,18,54,176/- on protective basis is not sustainable as the Ld. AO has not specified the provisions of the Act under which such addition is made. 3.5. That the assessments being complete u/s 143(3) or 143(1) there was no jurisdiction to make the assessment u/s 153A nor to ma…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 424/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 423/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3