CIT v. S. Nelliappan

66 ITR 722Supreme Court of India1967#1303 most cited

What is CIT v. S. Nelliappan authority for?

An inference drawn by tax authorities regarding the connection between undisclosed income and unexplained cash credits or other unaccounted assets must be upheld if not based on speculation, even without direct evidence. This principle confirms the telescoping of unexplained income, preventing double taxation by allowing a single source of undisclosed funds to explain multiple additions.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Nelliappan · 66 ITR 722 SC · telescoping unexplained income · unexplained cash credits · undisclosed income assessment · inference of fact · no direct evidence · double taxation prevention · assessment of additions

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 142amat creditsection 150surrender of incomeaccumulated profitssection 158bdsection 80icsection 2(22)shell companydeemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)retracted statement

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Nelliappan

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 582/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…made multiple additions, resulting in double taxation which was wrong and against the principles of natural justice. For this proposition the ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC) and hon’ble Allahabad HC in the case of CIT vs. Saraf Trading Co. (2015) 376 ITR 71 534, wherein the principle of telescoping for adjusting unexplained income was confirmed and it was also held that income cannot be added twice. 79. The ld. DR, on the other hand has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities as discussed above. Her mai…

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…made multiple additions, resulting in double taxation which was wrong and against the principles of natural justice. For this proposition the ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nelliappan (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC) and hon’ble Allahabad HC in the case of CIT vs. Saraf Trading Co. (2015) 376 ITR 71 534, wherein the principle of telescoping for adjusting unexplained income was confirmed and it was also held that income cannot be added twice. 79. The ld. DR, on the other hand has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities as discussed above. Her mai…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad, Aurangbad vs. Shri Pankaj Ratilal Mugdiya, Aurangabad

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

ITA 958/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…the year can be assumed to have been acquired from the undisclosed income earned in that very year and this undisclosed income constituted fund from which the asset was acquired. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Nelliappan (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC) held that even in the absence of direct evidence of any connection between the cash credit entries and the income withheld from the books of account by the assessees if the Tribunal inferred that there was a connection between the profits withheld from the books and the cash credit entries, then the said conclusion must be upheld and it canno…

DCIT Central Circle - 6(1), Mumbai vs. Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Private Limited, Thane

ITA 3110/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr . Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 143Section 69

…of the above sum once again. 019. Thus, learned CIT – A deleted the above addition of ₹ 7,384,000 holding that:- i. The assessee has already offered the income of ₹ 27.74 crores and therefore relying on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 66 ITR 722 that in absence of any direct evidence telescoping is permissible in absence of the direct link or connection between the profits and income unaccounted in the books. ii. The AO has not denied that the explanation offered by the assessee that the transaction is recorded therein pertain to the business receipts and were already offered to tax. The…

Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Pvt Ltd, Nariman Point vs. DCIT Circle-6(1), Mumbai, Nariman Point

ITA 2547/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadcg3716B Gnp Consultancy & Dcit Solutions Private Limited Central Circle-6(1) Plot No.91, Shop No.1 Room No.1905, 19 Th Floor, Channel Classic Chs Sector Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Point 4 Kopar Khairne, Thane Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 709 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 143Section 69

…f the above sum once again. 019. Thus, learned CIT – A deleted the above addition of ₹ 7,384,000 holding that:- i. The assessee has already offered the income of ₹ 27.74 crores and therefore relying on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 66 ITR 722 that in absence of any direct evidence telescoping is permissible in absence of the direct link or connection between the profits and income unaccounted in the books. ii. The AO has not denied that the explanation offered by the assessee that the transaction is recorded therein pertain to the business receipts and were already offered to tax. The…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…equired for raising the ground. It is settled position of law that legal issues can be taken in appeal at any stage. The following case laws are quoted in support (i) M/s Manju Shree Plantation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 144 ITR (St.) 50 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Nelliapan (1967) 66 ITR 722 (Supreme Court) (iii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court) (iv) CIT Vs. Delhi Sanitary Stores 177 ITR 282 (Raj) (v) Jora Singh Vs. ITO (2010) 42 DTR 409 (Lucknow Bench) In view of the above facts and position of law the Hon’ble ITAT is requestesd to admit the Additional Ground of Appeal and decision may be sympatheti…

M/S. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 755/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G Manoj Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…for the Assessee while reiterating plea as set forth in the application for admission of additional ground has further placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the plea for admission of additional ground. • CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] wherein it was held that Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT […

Usv P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-C-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

…if such claim was not made before the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority. In support of the above proposition, we place reliance upon the following decisions: - Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] - CIT v. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] - National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] - Ashok Vardhan Birla v, CWT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] - CIT v. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)] 59. Ld. DR objected for admission of the additional grounds as they were nev…

M/S. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ali Asgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

…ld. AR stated that the facts relating to the above additional grounds are already before the lower authorities and does not require any fresh enquiry. He relied on the following decisions and prayed for admission of additional grounds:- • CIT v. S Nelliappan, 66 ITR 722 (SC) • CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, 53 ITR 225 (SC) • Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 187 ITR 688 (SC) • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (Bom) • New India Industries Ltd., 207 ITR 1010 (Guj) • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Ashok Vardhan Birla v. CWT, 208 ITR 958 (Bom) •…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3178/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tax Tribunal. 32. The Hon'ble Division Bench refers to three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [(1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC)]; CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., [(1967) 66 ITR 710]; and CIT v. Nelliappan [(1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC)] wherein, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were referred to, which are quoted hereunder:- "In hearing an appeal, the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

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

ITA 3139/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tax Tribunal. 32. The Hon'ble Division Bench refers to three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [(1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC)]; CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., [(1967) 66 ITR 710]; and CIT v. Nelliappan [(1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC)] wherein, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were referred to, which are quoted hereunder:- "In hearing an appeal, the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal…

Zydus Healthcare Ltd, Gangtok vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…permission to raise additional grounds of appeal, has relied upon following decisions:- (i) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC); (ii) Jute Corporation of India Limited v CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC); (iii)CIT v Nelliappan (S.) [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC); (iv)Ahemdabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT |1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom.); (v)Inaroo Ltd. v CIT [1993] 204 ITR 312 (Bom.); 2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healthcare Limited (vi)Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT [19941 208 ITR 958 (Bom.); (vii) CIT v Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.). 4. The contention of the assessee for permissio…

Income Tax Officer -32(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kinjal Enterprises, Mumb

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 60/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 60/Mum/2022 Ita Nos. 2464/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Shashank Mehta
Section 132Section 143(2)

…at the authorities are duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creators subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions Tags the ITAT did not merely give findings of fact but misapplied the Taw Hence the authorities CIT v S Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC), Orissa Corpn Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Gun Nidhi Dalmia (supra) do not support the Assessee's case, The Assessee has failed to discharge his initial burden as the explanation given by the Assessee and the four individuals does not appear to be credible We find that in the aforesaid case, the details of creditworthiness of the lenders were not avail…

ITO 32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kinjal Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2464/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 60/Mum/2022 Ita Nos. 2464/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Shashank Mehta
Section 132Section 143(2)

…at the authorities are duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creators subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions Tags the ITAT did not merely give findings of fact but misapplied the Taw Hence the authorities CIT v S Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC), Orissa Corpn Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Gun Nidhi Dalmia (supra) do not support the Assessee's case, The Assessee has failed to discharge his initial burden as the explanation given by the Assessee and the four individuals does not appear to be credible We find that in the aforesaid case, the details of creditworthiness of the lenders were not avail…

S.S. Oral Hygiene Products P. Ltd ( Now Merged With Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

ITA 774/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri

…as, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his powers is conterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and can also direct him to do what he has failed to do." CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "In hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. Ahmedabad Electr…

Ss Oral Hygeine Products P.Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) ( Now Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

ITA 5677/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri

…as, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his powers is conterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and can also direct him to do what he has failed to do." CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "In hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. Ahmedabad Electr…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. S.S Oral Hygiene Products P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

ITA 5538/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri

…as, therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his powers is conterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and can also direct him to do what he has failed to do." CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "In hearing an appeal the Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. Ahmedabad Electr…

Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…further submitted that in respect of an issue for which all facts are on record, an assessee can raise new plea which was not raised before any of the lower authorities and in support, reliance was placed on following decisions: • CIT Vs. S.Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) • All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd Vs. DCIT [2012] 16 ITR (Trib.) 380 (ITAT Mum.) • Bector Food Specialties Ltd Vs. JCIT [2019] ITA No. 396/Chd/2013 (ITAT Chandigarh) • Hukumchand Mills Ltd Vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) • VMT Spinning Co Ltd. Vs. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 326 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.[1984] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.)…

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…di for the proposition that, the books of account could be relied upon to make addition, though the same books were rejected to estimate the income of the appellant. d. The appellant further submits that a latter decision of the Apex court in CIT v IeIliappan 66 ITR 722 (SC) has taken a different view on the same aspect and thus there are two diametrically opposite decisions by the apex Court. e. It is settled position that when there are two contrary views on a certain point, the in favour of the assessee shall be followed. CIT v Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192 (SC) f. Without prejudice to the above and not co…

M/S. Jds Ventures India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Jds Ventures India Limited Income Tax Officer – 10(2)(1) V. Office No. 4, Bharat Photo House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 547, Kalbadevi Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaeca1485E Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Aggarwal Revenue Represented By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

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

…authorities are duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditors, subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. Thus the ITAT did not merely give findings of fact but misapplied the law. Hence the authorities CIT v. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC), Orissa Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Gun Nidhi Dalmia (supra) do not support the Assessee's case. The Assessee has failed to discharge his initial burden as the explanation given by the Assessee and the four individuals does not appear to be credible. Hence it could be seen that the aforesaid narration of facts are totally distinguishable with f…