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

Jayashree Anand Enterprises, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1372/HYD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2020AY 1998-99

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 1998-99 Jayashree Anand Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – Enterprises, Hyderabad. 11(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaefj9509K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Djp Anand Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri DJP Anand

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 69

…rein it could not have earned any income within a short period after such commencement. Another decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ernakulam Vs. P.K. Noorjahan, reported in 237 ITR 570, wherein it was held that the intention of the parliament in enacting section 69 was to 10 I.T.A. No. 1372/Hyd/16 Jayashree Anand Enterprises, Hyd. confer discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained. It is also held that the question whether the source of investment should…

Kishan Mehta, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainkishan Mehta, Vs A.C.I.T., D-19-20, Shiv Park Circle-1, Colony, Durga Nursery Udaipur. Road, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acipm 6039 R

Section 143(3)

…6-(204)-CTR-0009-Mad Hon'ble High Court held that - When the assessee have established all the requirements of IT Act,... rejection of those explanations is definitely due to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power." (b) CIT Vs Smt P K Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC] ... to treat the…… the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory and the said discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the particular case. (c) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 37 ITR 288 (SC) – ... that burden to prove the source ... was on the assessee a…

M/S Intent Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(2), Kolkata

ITA 2179/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…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. 14. So, with the aforesaid understanding of section 68 of the Act, let us examine whether the view of AO in the light of the investigation and results as discussed supra is a pos…

M/S Omkar Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 896/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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. 17. So, with the aforesaid understanding of section 68 of the Act, let us examine whether the view of AO in the light of the investigation and results as discussed supra is a pos…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hind Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Hind Industries Ltd. Circle 11(1) A-1, Phase-1, Okhla New Delhi Industrial Area New Delhi (Appellant) Aaach0870N (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

…IT Act is a discretionary provision and not mandatory provision. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Pr. CIT vs. Rama Shankar Yadav (2017) 85 taxmann.com 173 (All) ii) CIT vs. Smt. PK Noorjahan 123 ITR 3 (Kerala) iii) CIT vs. Smt. PK Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The Ld. AR submitted that if the assessee explains the source of payment and there is no dispute about the source of payment, then Section 69C of IT Act is not applicable. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Sajni Jewellers vs. DCIT 241 ITR 383 (Guj) ii) CIT vs. Golani Brothers 300 CTR 245 (Bom) 6 The Ld. AR further submitte…

ACIT, Trichy vs. K.Udhayakumaran, Trichy

In the result, the Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 917/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos: 916 & 917/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri. K. Udhayakumaran, Income Tax, No. 1-A, Vignesh Complex, Central Circle -1, Dindigul Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Trichy – 620 001. Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. [Pan: Aalpu 6054B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri. S. Bharath, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020

Section 132ASection 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos: 916 & 917/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Shri. K. Udhayakumaran, Income Tax, No. 1-A, Vignesh Complex, Central Circle -1, Dindigul Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Trichy – 620 001. Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. [PAN: AALPU 6054B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appel…

ACIT, Trichy vs. K.Udhayakumaran, Trichy

In the result, the Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 916/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Section 132ASection 69A

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. H.K. Pujara Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2008-

ITA 5307/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit – 25(2), M/S H.K. Pujara Builders, R. No. 508, C-10, 5Th Floor, 11, Swastik Plaza, V.L. Marg, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai - 400049 Bandra (E), Pan: Aaafh7230H Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Sachchidanand Dube (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2020

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube (DR)

Section 143Section 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. 5.17 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 aspec…

Jt. CIT (OSD), (E), C-2, Chandigarh vs. Ch. Lekh Raj Educational & Charitable Trust, Yamunanagar

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

ITA 717/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 717/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

…ed if they were called. This is stretching the power of investigation given to the Assessing Officer, too far. The Assessing Officer cannot make addition under section 68 of the Act in such a casual manner. It has been held in the case of CIT Vs P.K.Noorjahan 237 ITR 570(SC) that the addition cannot be made by the Assessing Officer just for the sake of making addition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the donation received from the persons who were not called and the persons who were called and accepted the fact of giving donation, cannot be said to be not genuine. As regards the persons who…

Sh. Barat Pal Sood, Phagwara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Phagwara

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

ITA 11/ASR/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR

Section 143(3)

…used in section 68 are "may be charged to tax" which clearly indicates that it is not necessary to make an addition in every case and situation. We draw your attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K Noorjehan reported at 237 ITR 570 wherein it was held while dealing with section 69 that the ITO is not obliged to treat the unexplained investment as income in each and every case. Where the assessee was a young land and could not have earned the income in question, the deletion of addition by the IT A T was justified. In this case, the funds were deposited in the bank account d…

Partha Chatterjee, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Hooghly

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1015/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 Partha Chatterjee Acit, Circle-1, Hg बनाम C/O S.N.Ghosh & Aaykar Bhawan, G.T. / Associates, Advocates’ V/S. Road, Khadina More,P.O. “Seven Brotherrs’ Lodge” Chinsurah, P.S.Chinsurah, P.O.Buroshibtala, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712101 P.S.Chinsurah, Dist.Hooghly, Pin-712105 [Pan No.Acepc 8818 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Altaf Husain, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed In Case No.360/Cit(A)-6/Kol/2014-15, Involving Proceedings 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’ Pleadings Raised In The Instant Case Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Cost Of Construction Amounting To ₹27,88,995/- In Exercise Of Their Rectification Jurisdiction Vested U/S. 154 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 154

…construction in actuality and thus, it goes without saying that it would be monstrously impossible to treat the investment as undisclosed. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the decision of Apex Court in the case of C.I. T. - vs- P.K. NOORJAHAN (2000) 237 ITR 570 (SC), wherein it has been held that mere rejection of an explanation would not automatically entitle the Assessing Officer to conclude that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and for that purpose addition envisaged u/ s. 69 of the Act shall not be warranted. When the stand of the appellant is vindicated by proven facts, there ca…

Smt. Sanjukta Prusty, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

…the said on-money could not be treated as unaccounted money and brought to tax under section 68 as ‘income from other sources’. 14. Ld counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. P.K.Noorjahan (1999) 155 CTR 509 (SC), wherein, P a g e 18 | 21 ITA No.95/ CTK/2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14 it was held that a discretion has been conferred on the ITO u/s. 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as the income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory and the said discretion has to be exercised keeping…

Adarsh Agrawal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 777/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…1 & SP.No.09/Gau/2011, Dated 07.02.2012. 08. Order of ITAT, Mumbai D-Bench-T.M. Mumbai in the case of S.P. Goyal vs., DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 [Mum.]. 09. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 [SC]. 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that re- assessment proceedings have been rightly initiated based on the agreement found during the course of search in the case of Shri Naresh Sabharwal. 7 ITA.No.777/Del./2019 Shri Adarsh Agrawal, Delhi. 8. We have considered the rival submission…

DCIT, Circle-2, Asansol vs. M/S. Diamond Bottling Plant Company, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 894/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.894/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-2, Asansol Vs. M/S Diamond Bottling Plant Company C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O-Buroshibtala, P.S- Chinsurah, Hooghly, - 712105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefd5674R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Asansol Dated 30.01.2019 Passed In Case No.58/Cit(A)/Asl/Dcit/Cir-2/Asl/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Seeks To Revive Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Loans Of Rs.11,85,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Which Has Been Reversed To The Extent Of Rs.5,26,50,251/- In The Cit(A)’S Order. Its Case Accordingly Is That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Added The Assessee’S Total Loan Amount Of Rs. 11,85,00,000/- Raised From Four Entities M/S Diamond Carbon Pvt. Ltd., M/S Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/S Wimper Trading & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Mukherjee Farms Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate

Section 143(3)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. 13. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under secti…

Tradelink Carrying Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata

ITA 1636/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

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. 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. 17. In the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 5…

Sri.Mathew Philip, Kochi vs. The ITO, WD-1(3), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year:2015-16

Section 69

…31/12/2013 so as to make a deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 26/09/2014. In fact, the preponderance of probability has to be presumed in favour of the assessee. For this, the assessee relied on the Rule laid clown by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570). In the above decision, the Supreme Court while interpreting the phraseology used in Sec. 69 had held that in creating the legal fiction, the phraseology employs the word "may" 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…

Shri Krushnakant Bhailalbhai Patel, Kheda vs. ITO, Ward-2, Nadiad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2329/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2329/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krushnakant Bhailalbhai Patel Ito, Ward-2 At Mahudha Nagarwada Vs Nadiad. Nr.Gujarati School At & Post Mahudha Dist. Kheda. Pan : Awkpp 7005 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69

…deposits with the bank as unexplained income of the assessee or not. Since the assessee is an agriculturist, he has no other source of income, therefore, on the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjahan Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC), which affirmed the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjehan, 123 ITR 3, CIT Vs. Moghul Darbar, 216 ITR 301, DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 and Mitesh Rolling Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 278, it is submitted that additions ought not to have been made. In the submissions, the ld.counsel for the assessee has made reference to the following decis…

Pramod Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 6355/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Anunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 68

…of the appellant there is no possibility to earn such an amount as an income and, therefore, addition on account of cash deposit could not be made as unexplained case credit in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Bharat Engineers & Construction Co. 83 ITR 187 (SC). 4. That the CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating that since in certain other cases of Tarun Goyal Group, only the commission has been considered in respect of all credit entries, in the case of the appellant also only the commission income could be determined with reference to…

Rajesh Prasad, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 6354/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Anunav Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 68

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80ISection 80l

…under section 80IC of the Act on insurance claim received for Rs.2,50,125/ regarding income from insurance claim. Regarding the income from insurance claim, Assessing Officer referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods 237 ITR 597 and disallowed claim of assessee. The Id. CIT(Appeals) considering the issue directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee had received any real income on this account and to restrict disallowance accordingly….. . ... 27 After considering rival submissions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Id. CIT(Appeals) . The Id. C…