CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

237 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1999#247 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan authority for?

An unsatisfactory explanation for an amount credited in the books does not automatically result in it being deemed as the assessee's income under Section 68. The initial onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

304

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt P K Noorjahan · CIT v Smt P K Noorjahan · 237 ITR 570 · Section 68 · Section 69 · cash credit · unexplained money · burden of proof · onus of proof · unsatisfactory explanation · deemed income · identity creditworthiness genuineness

Also reported as

103 Taxmann 382150 Taxmann.com 301155 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 115BBESection 147Section 148Section 68Section 132Section 69

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsection 132(4a)loose papersaddition under section 68unexplained moneysection 69section 158unexplained investmentsection 158bsection 115bbsection 131section 115bbe

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 167/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sunrise Structural & ACIT/DCIT, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, vs Nagpur Hingna MIDC, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 PAN : AACCS 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 12/02/…

BHILAI KARMCHARI ADARSH SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, ,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

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

ITA 500/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 500/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bhilai Karmchari Adarsh Sakh Vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sector-2, Bhilai, Opposite Aatmanand A-Market, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, School, Risali, Bhilai, 490002. Chhattisgarh. (अपीलाथ" / Appellant ) ( ""थ" / Respondent ) S. A. No: 01/Rpr/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 500/Rpr/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bhilai Karmchari Adarsh Sakh Vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sector-2, A- Bhilai, Opposite Aatmanand Market, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, 490002. School, Risali, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aabtb3317L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Moolchand Jain, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 10/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2016-17 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Also Filed A Stay Application (‘Sa’) Against The Above Mentioned Ita.

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, Advocate
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69Section 69A

…tion 69A is legally tenable. The provision clearly applies when an assessee is found to be the owner of any money not recorded in books of account and for which no satisfactory explanation is offered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan ((1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)] affirmed that the initial burden lies on the assessee to explain the source of the money found in their possession. This burden has not been discharged satisfactorily. The assessee's reliance on having maintained some form of internal records does not absolve it from substantiating its claim before the tax authorities with documentary evide…

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

ITA 2270/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 68Section 69A

…uthorities below failed to appreciate that ₹ 29,15,000/- was deposited in the bank on the very date of execution of the sale deed (07.07.2010), clearly establishing a nexus between the sale consideration and the cash deposits. Reliance: CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570 (SC)). 3. The addition results in double taxation, as the AO has already accepted the computation of long-term capital gain on the full sale price of ₹ 61,00,000/-(net of cost & investment u/s 54), and simultaneously treated part of the same receipt as unexplained money, which is contradictory and impermissible in law. Reliance: ITO v. Raj Kumar…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…332 (Del) ACIT v. Rakesh Narang (extracted at pages 314 of Paper Book) iv) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (extracted at pages 315 of Paper Book) v) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CO…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…332 (Del) ACIT v. Rakesh Narang (extracted at pages 314 of Paper Book) iv) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (extracted at pages 315 of Paper Book) v) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CO…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…332 (Del) ACIT v. Rakesh Narang (extracted at pages 314 of Paper Book) iv) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (extracted at pages 315 of Paper Book) v) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CO…

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

…e source of the opening cash balance. Merely because cash was withdrawn and re- deposited does not make it "unexplained." The source was already explained and taxed in the year of receipt (the retirement benefits). Case Law: CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1997) 237 ITR 570 (SC): ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal (ITAT Agra): 4. Ground: Failure to Discharge Burden of Proof - The Onus was Wrongly Placed on the Assessee. Objection: The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the initial burden to prove that the cash deposits were income was on the Revenue. The department merely pointed to the deposits and then demanded an explana…

NIMUS PROJECTS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

ITA 5015/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ent denial of a transaction which is clearly made out from the seized document cannot be taken as ground for providing any relief to the assessee. Judicial Pronouncements The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan reported at [1999] 237 ITR 570 has held that if, the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment is not found to be satisfactory, the AO has the discretion to treat such investment as assessee's income. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru S. Shyam Kumar vs. ACIT reported at [2018] 99 taxmann.com 39 has held as under: Unexplained investm…

NIMBUS PROJECTS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

ITA 5014/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ent denial of a transaction which is clearly made out from the seized document cannot be taken as ground for providing any relief to the assessee. Judicial Pronouncements The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan reported at [1999] 237 ITR 570 has held that if, the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment is not found to be satisfactory, the AO has the discretion to treat such investment as assessee's income. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru S. Shyam Kumar vs. ACIT reported at [2018] 99 taxmann.com 39 has held as under: Unexplained investm…

NUMBUS PROJECTS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

ITA 5013/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ent denial of a transaction which is clearly made out from the seized document cannot be taken as ground for providing any relief to the assessee. Judicial Pronouncements The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan reported at [1999] 237 ITR 570 has held that if, the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment is not found to be satisfactory, the AO has the discretion to treat such investment as assessee's income. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru S. Shyam Kumar vs. ACIT reported at [2018] 99 taxmann.com 39 has held as under: Unexplained investm…

PANDIAN HARI,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2628/CHNY/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2628/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Pandian Hari, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Thambuchetty Street, Parrys, Chennai - 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 05.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2023-24. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…nded that no addition u/s.69A of :- 4 -: ITA No.2628/Chny/2025 the Act is warranted. In support of his contention, the Ld.AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements i. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan reported in (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) ii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai reported in (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del) 6. The Ld.DR on the other hand submitted that assessee has not furnished confirmation nor the details such as PAN, etc., of the mother, wife and relatives either before the AO or the FAA. It was further submitted that the FAA has categorically…

TAFSEER AHMAD,LUCKNOW vs. DDIT/ADIT(INTL TAX)LKN, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 517/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…ed. 9. Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1 (Bom)] ITA(IT) No.517/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 8 Held: Powers of appellate authority are co-terminus with that of AO, and additional evidence can be admitted to meet ends of justice. 10. CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570 (SC)]. Held: Addition cannot be made merely because explanation is not fully satisfactory if assesses overall circumstances support it. 11. ITO v. Ashok Kumar (ITAT Chandigarh) Held: Cash deposits during demonetization explained through past savings and family withdrawals accepted. Held: Addition cannot be made merely because explanation is not f…

PREM SAGAR CHOPRA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4538/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Prem Sagar Chopra (Since Ito - 16(1)(3) Mumbai, Deceased) Through Neelam Prem Vs Room No. 438, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sagar Chopra (Wife), Road, Churchgate, Sagar Villa Road No. 12A, Jvpd Mumbai – 400020. Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400049. [Pan No. Aapps2469E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Prem Sagar Chopra (since ITO - 16(1)(3) Mumbai, deceased) through Neelam Prem Vs Room No. 438, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sagar Chopra (wife), Road, Churchgate, Sagar Villa Road No. 12A, JVPD Mumbai – 400020. Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400049. [PAN No. AAPPS2469E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by S/Shri Vipul Joshi and Prashant Ghumare, Advocates Revenue by Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR (virtually) Date of institution of appeal 16.0…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. JAIPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4990/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2012-13] Assistant Commissioner, Of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Income Tax, Private Limited, Room No.316A, C.R. Vs 4741, Roshananra Road, Building, I.P Estate, Malkaganj, North Delhi, New New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110007 Pan Aaacj4124B Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Y.K. Mehan, Ca, Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 143(3)

…ITR 673 (Guj) Dinesh Mills Ltd. vs CIT d) 73 ITD 189 (Del) Goodyear India Ltd vs ITO e) 106 TTJ 1065 (Del) Hughes Escorts Communications Limited vs JCIT f) 94 TTJ 423 (Asr) Sunder Mal Sat Pal vs ITO g) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh) DCIT vs Surface Finishing Equipment h) 237 ITR 570 (SC) Manika Gems &Ors v ACIT i) 104 TTJ 254 (Pune) Coco Cola (India) Ltd v JCIT j) 253 ITR 749 (Guj) Sayaji Iron &Engg. Co. Again, mere non-compliance with notices issued under section 133(6) cannot be made a basis to hold that expenditure incurred by the appellant company is not genuine. The responsibility of the appellant was limited to produci…

CHANNAPATNA SIDDAPPAJI SANDEEP GOWDA,CHANNAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAMANAGARA

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvan M, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…e AO has committed a serious error in taxing the entire deposit as income. Courts have repeatedly held that cash deposits representing business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained income. Reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and CIT v. Shanta Devi 208 ITR 87, where it is held that only net income is taxable. . ITA No.1593-1595/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 12 9.4 The learned AR submits that the assessee has declared turnover higher than the cash deposits in the return, and tax has already been paid under presumptive scheme at the rate prescribed under section 44AD of the A…

CHANNAPATNA SIDDAPPAJI SANDEEP GOWDA,CHANNAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAMANAGARA

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1594/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvan M, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…e AO has committed a serious error in taxing the entire deposit as income. Courts have repeatedly held that cash deposits representing business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained income. Reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and CIT v. Shanta Devi 208 ITR 87, where it is held that only net income is taxable. . ITA No.1593-1595/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 12 9.4 The learned AR submits that the assessee has declared turnover higher than the cash deposits in the return, and tax has already been paid under presumptive scheme at the rate prescribed under section 44AD of the A…

CHANNAPATNA SIDDAPPAJI SANDEEP GOWDA,CHANNAPTNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMANAGARA

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1593/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvan M, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…e AO has committed a serious error in taxing the entire deposit as income. Courts have repeatedly held that cash deposits representing business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained income. Reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and CIT v. Shanta Devi 208 ITR 87, where it is held that only net income is taxable. . ITA No.1593-1595/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 12 9.4 The learned AR submits that the assessee has declared turnover higher than the cash deposits in the return, and tax has already been paid under presumptive scheme at the rate prescribed under section 44AD of the A…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…r which is not recorded in the books of account. It is submitted that in the absence of the burden having not been discharged, it was not permissible in law to draw adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: a) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC)…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…r which is not recorded in the books of account. It is submitted that in the absence of the burden having not been discharged, it was not permissible in law to draw adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: a) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC)…

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 271Section 271A

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1470/JP/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nRupesh Tambi\nH-157, Tambi Bhawan,\nBani Park, Jaipur\nJhakereshwar Mahadev Marg\nबनाम\nACIT,\nVs.\nCentral Circle-02,\nJaipur\nस्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABBPT2319M\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Asses…

Showing 1–20 of 304 · Page 1 of 16

...