How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan?

308 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69A, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 147, Section 148, Section 68.

CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

237 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1999#251 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.

308

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 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 69A Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 132 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor section 132(4a)loose papers addition under section 68 unexplained money section 69 section 158 unexplained investment section 158b section 115bb section 131 section 115bbe

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

M/S Swargamrut Dairy Prv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6839/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 11(2)(2) 113, 1St Chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 Pan: Aalcs3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department By : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Menon

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…and not "shall". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 5.16. After considering the totality of facts, the rival submissions, the applicable law and on the basis of discussions mentioned above, I have come to the conclusion that nature and source of credit in the books of account of appellant stands explained. Consequently, addition u/s. 68 cannot be sustained. Therefore, A.O. is directed to delete t…

Jai Deep Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…in land is not found to be satisfactory explained, no addition can be made in the peculiar facts of the case. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) • CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). 15. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the ld. 19 Shri Jaideep Singh vs. ITO CIT(A) which are contained at para 6 & 6.1 of his order which read as under:- “6 Ground No. 4 relates to the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash payment…

Shri Bhavesh A. Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 3183/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3183/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…e was more income earned from the agricultural operations than the certified income of ₹ 20 lakhs. Asstt. Year 2008-09 9 10.11 The learned AR also made a reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan reported in 237 ITR 570, but to our humble understanding the ratio of such judgment is not applicable in the case on hand. Indeed the AO may make the addition on account of unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, if the assessee failed to justify the source of such investments. Admittedly, the assessee failed to justify the source of investments and therefo…

Dolphin Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata

ITA 240/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 127Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…oriness of the explanation does not and need not 7 Dolphin Goods (P) Ltd., AY 2009-10 automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 17. We note that in the present case, the assessee had submitted the following relevant details to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share transaction in question and the evidence inter-alia which were filed before the AO included the following details. (a) Income Tax Return of the share holders (b) Audited Acco…

J.C.I.T.(OSD), Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Werit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 55/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…nd not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 20. The main plank on which the AO made the addition in the assessment proceedings was non-service of notice and in the remand proceedings was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and following the same, the Hon'bl…

Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2191/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

JCIT(OSD), Cir.-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 115/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 20/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

Shri Om Prakash Modi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 196/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 274

…sted not to impose the penalty considering the facts and circumstances of that case which in section 271AAB is very heavily cast upon AO since having special circumstances. Hon’ble Supreme court in the following case has held as under: CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC)(case law compilation page 61-63) Unexplained investment – Scope of section 69 – ITO is not obliged to treat source of investment as income whenever explanation regarding it is not satisfactory – Word “MAY” in section 69 cannot be interpreted to mean “SHALL” – Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 69. This judgement, though is in context of sec. 69, but t…

Fizaan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(1), Kolkata

ITA 166/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 68

…nd not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. We note that against the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the special leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 12. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the c…

M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.to., Ward-2(1), Burdman

ITA 501/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice Income Tax Officer, बनाम & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), Aayakar / Vill-Kalsi, P.O. V/S. Bhawan, Court Chotkhanda, P.S. Memari, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan, Pin-713146 713101 [Pan No.Aabcl 6230 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…d not "shall". Thus the un- satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. We note that against the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the special leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cas…

M/S Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

ITA 2020/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 250Section 68

…nd not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. We note that against the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the special leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cas…

M/S. Matarani Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 15(1), Kolkata

ITA 343/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)

…d not "shall". Thus the un- satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. We note that against the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the special leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 12. Coming to another case wherein the main plank on which the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act was because the lenders/creditors [ like directors of share subscribing comp…

Shri Ghasi Ram, Kotkasim vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Alwar

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 03/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Ghasi Ram Kotkasim, Ito, Vs. C/O- O.P. Batheja, D-18, Anand Ward-1(5), Vihar, Railway Colony, Jagatpura, Alwar. Jaipur-302017. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bnupr 2296 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri O.P. Batheja (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Batheja (ITP)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234A

…kindly be accepted as out of sale proceeds of agricultural land, for the cause of substantial justice. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. ITA 03/JP/2020_ 6 Ghasi Ram Kotkasim Vs ITO P.K.Noorjahan, reported in (1999) 237 ITR 570(S.C.). The ld AR has also relied on the decision of the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Pappu Ram Saran v. ITO in ITA No. 1303/JP/2018 order dated 03/09/2020. 5. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We…

Smt. Mousumi Roy, Asansol vs. I.to., Ward-2(2), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 574/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…e evidences without giving any reason. The Revenue has no material to come to a conclusion otherwise. The assessee has no other source of income. The propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) is as follows: “Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investment - Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 - Assessee's explanation that investment made in purchase of land came from her step-father was not found satisfactory by Assessing Officer who made addition as income from other sources - Whether, if considered in true per…

Rahul Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-46, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 131Section 68

…nd not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. We note that against the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the special leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 7 AY 2016-17 Rahul Agarwal and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohin…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…)  CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) 38 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2.37 We also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. K.Noorjahan (237 ITR 570) (SC) to bring home the point that every case of cash credit does not have to be taxed under Section 68 of the Act. The word used in the section is „may‟ and Section 68 cannot be applied mechanically in the case of the assessee. The AO must also consider the attending circumstances before pressing into service Section 68. In the case of the asses…

I.T.O. - 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Leena Haresh Harde, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6429/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(2)(5) V. Smt Leena Haresh Harde Room No. 506, C-10, 5Th Floor 502, 5Th Floor, Padmawati Palace Pratyakshakar Bhavan Nanda Patkar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaxph1737Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Michael Jerald

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 68

…and not "shall. Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 7.12 The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO vs Anand Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 153 has enumerated certain principles which would be extremely useful in understanding the issue in hand. It has been stated in the said judgment that over the years, law regarding cash credits have evolved and has taken a definite shape. A few aspe…

Shri Rajesh Chandha C/O- Kalani & Co. Ca 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Ajmer vs. DCIT Circle (International Taxation) Jaipur, Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 969/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 18

…3 Shri Rajesh Chadha, Ajmer Vs. DCIT, Circle (IT), Jaipur assessee is not satisfactory considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570. 6. Per contra, the ld DR submitted that the assessee has failed to submit primary evidence in support of his explanation that the money so deposited in his bank account is out of the foreign exchange brought-in by him in the Country and exchanged with Indian Rupees and in absence of such evidence and establishing the necessary nexus, the Assessi…

M/S Satyam Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2445/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

…nd not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. We note that against the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the special leave petition filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 19. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the c…