How many judgments cite CIT v. S. Nelliappan?

87 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S. Nelliappan (66 ITR 722), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. S. Nelliappan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 142(1), Section 144C(13), Section 144C(5), Section 148.

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.

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 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148 Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 142a mat credit section 150 surrender of income accumulated profits section 158bd section 80ic section 2(22)shell company deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)retracted statement

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Nelliappan

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/55/2017HC Delhi25 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 68

…ate the ITA No.55/2017 Page 24 of 25 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 Madras vs. S. Nelliappan (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC), CIT Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT Vs. Gun Nidhi Dalmia (1987) 168 ITR 282 (Del) 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. 42. There is no dispute to the proposition…

Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 1920/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1920/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1(2), Burdwan C/O Benu Radio Product, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Baidyapur More, Opp.Uti Bank Compound, Burdwan Po-Kalna, Dist-Burdwan- 713101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhpc 8020 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan, In Appeal No.365/Cit(A)/Asl/Wd-1(2)/Bwn/2010-11, Dated 26.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.10.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.06.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,04,640/- . Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(2) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Undisclosed Income U/S.69 At Rs.11,04,790/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Had Come To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had 2 Sri Santanu Chatterjee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,04,790/- In Axis Bank Kalana Bearing Account

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

…he said deposit. 3. For that the appellate authority should have considered the fact that the A.O. cannot add entire amount without giving benefit of expenses.Therefore, application of peak credit is best attentive and as affirmed in C.I.T. vs U.S. Nelliapan, 66 ITR 722 (SC), Sarwpchand Kojwan vs C.I.T. 235 ITR 732 (KT), ACIT Ahmadabad vs Iqbal Shafi Mohammad Chippa, ITAT (Ahm). 4. For that the case deposits in bank account during the year under consideration included the peak credit and none of those deposits yielded deemed income of the applicant. 5. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds o…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 14I, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…ore it even though these might not have arisen from AAC's order, so long as these grounds were in respect of subject matter of entire tax proceedings. The Courts have also upheld admission of additional grounds in the following cases: • CIT Vs. S. Nelliappan (66 ITR 722 (SC) • Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CWT (208 ITR 958 (Bom) 7. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Pradeep G. Vora vide ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 pronounced on 30.05.2014 examined the issue of admission of additional ground in detail vide para Nos. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the order. In paragraph No. 3.1, it is held that the power of the Tribunal to allow an…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4542/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…r without indulging in delaying tactics. In this connection, we wish to rely on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Honbie Jurisdictional High Court:- 1. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] 2. CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] 3. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] 4. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [349 ITR 336 (Bom)] 5. Ashok Vardhan Birla vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom)] 6. Inaroo vs. CIT [204 ITR 312 (Bom)] 7. CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd. [141 ITR 626 (Bom)]” 3.8. Following additional grounds have been raised along with the aforesa…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4497/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 675/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Chavali S. Narayan, CA

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 80H

…. 14 DTR 561 (Del)(ITAT) IT(TP)A No.675/Bang/2012 M/s.Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Page 11 of 18 vi. CIT Vs. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co.USA 11 ITR 529 (Mum) vii. CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. 66 ITR 710 (SC) viii. CIT Vs. Nelliappan 66 ITR 722 ix. ACIT Vs. M/S.Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UJF Ltd. (2009-TIOL- 51-ITAT-DEL) 14. On merits of the ground raised in the application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that as per section 10A(1) of the Act "Subject to the provisions of this section, a deduction of such profits and gains as are derived by a…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sonal Constructions

In the result, the substantial question of law framed in ITA No

ITA/1132/2007HC Delhi04 Oct 2012

Section 132Section 158

…ition laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 593 and by the Madras High Court in S. Kupuswami Mudaliar v. CIT, (1964) 51 ITR 757 as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Nelliappan, (1967) 66 ITR 722 and held that if there was a connection between the profits withheld from the books and the amounts entered as cash credits, it is possible to hold that the former constituted the source for the latter and if such a finding is entered on the basis of the facts, the Court will be reluctant to disturb the finding. Considering the legal position…