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 366,470 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

Prasun Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-38, Kolkata

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

ITA 1021/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhelwala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Roy, JCIT

Section 144Section 56(1)Section 69

…un Mukherjee, AY 2010-11 at the undisclosed income of the assessee in the undisclosed bank account No.SB 6664 with the Syndicate bank.” Reference may also be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. P.K.Noorjehan reported in 237 ITR 570(SC) wherein their lordships have held that mere unsatisfactoriness of the explanation offered by the assessee, does not, and need not, automatically result in deeming the value of investment to be the income of the assessee. That is still a matter within the discretion of the officer and, therefore, of the Tribunal. In other words, the discretion…

D.C.I.T CC - Xiii, Kolkata. vs. Sri Ram Chandra Daga, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’ appeal is dismissed

ITA 274/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…ak credit method to arrive at the undisclosed income of the assessee in the undisclosed bank account No.SB6664 with the Syndicate Bank’ Reference may also be drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K.Noorjehan reported in 237 ITR 570 (SC) wherein their lordships have held that mere unsatisfactoriness of the explanation offered by these, does not, and need not, automatically result in deeming the value of investment to be the income of the assessee. That is still a matter within the discretion of the officer and, therefore of the Tribunal. In other words, the discretion has be…

M/S Auroplas Gold Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S - Ranisati Dealcomm Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kolkata - II, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1488/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S. Auroplas Gold Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd.,(Formerly Known As M/S. Kolkata-Ii, Ranisati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.) C/O Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., Aayakarbhawan, 7, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- P-7, Chowringhee Square, 700072. Kolkata – 700 069. Pan: Aaecr 0440 C Assessment Year 2008-09 Sheetal City Realtors Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., C/O Poddar & Kolkata-Ii, Aayakarbhawan, Associates, 9/12, Lalbazar Street, ‘Mercantile Building; P-7, Chowringhee Square, 1St Floor, Block-D, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700001. Pan: Aabce 8664 L Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. Subhdhan Commodities Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., C/O, Salarpuria Kolkata-Iii, Jajodia & Co., 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, 1

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…AO to make or not to make any addition under this section if he is not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee. This proposition was bolstered with the help of a judgment from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) in which it has been held that if AO is not satisfied, then addition is not must. A view was canvassed that when the AO chose not to make any addition by exercising his discretion as per the mandate of section 68, then the ld. CIT in the instant cases was not obliged to hold against the assessees. 7. We agree with the ratio decidendi of t…

Bluesea Securities Broking P. Ltd (Formelry Apex Stock Borkers P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4091/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.4091/Mum./2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001–02) Bluesea Securities Broking Pvt. Ltd. Formerly, Apex Stock Brokers P. Ltd. …….………. अऩीरधथी / A/23, Tilak, Shanti Ashram Appellant Boriwali (W), Mumbai 400 103 Pan – Aacca7110L V/S ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Income Tax Officer Ward–9(1)(2), Mumbai Respondent ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…कर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’ म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री राजेंद्र, ऱेखा सदस्य एवुं श्री शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आमकय अऩीर सं. / ITA no.4091/Mum./2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001–02) Bluesea Securities Broking Pvt. Ltd. Formerly, Apex Stock Brokers P. Ltd. …….………. अऩीरधथी / A/23, Tilak, Shanti Ashram Appellant Boriwali (W), Mumbai 400 103 PAN – AACCA7110L v/s ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Income Tax Officer Ward–9(1)(2), Mumbai Respondent ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee by : S…

Smt. C.P. Prameelamma, Channapatna vs. ITO, Mandya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. Georgesingle Member Case I.T.A No.369/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2000-01) Smt. C. P. Prameelamma, W/O. Shri. C. Govindappa, Keremegala Doddi, Tippi Silk Farm, Channapatna – 571501 .. Appellant Pan : Aoupp5330C V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 3, Mandya .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 08.10.2015 Pronounced On : 09 .10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234C

…n law. According to him assessee was only an agriculturist and her only source of income was agricultural income. Simply based on surmises the reopening was resorted to. Reliance was also placed on the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P. K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570]. 06. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supporting the order of CIT (A) submitted that judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of C. M. Mahadeva (supra) did not apply on facts here. According to him in the said case concerned assessee had filed a return u/s.143(1) of the Act and the reassessment proceedings were initiated after processing of…

Riddhi Promoters Pvt.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-7

ITA-227/2015HC Delhi27 Mar 2015

Section 143(1)Section 68

…entries in its books represent income from undisclosed sources. But what inference should be drawn from the facts proved is a question of fact and the Tribunal's finding on that question is final. 4. Learned counsel also relied upon CIT vs. P.K.Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and submitted that besides, four High Courts’ decision apply the ruling in Bharat Engineering (supra). 5. As to the statutory requirement of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports 216 ITR 195 stated as follows: “Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of Income Tax Act…

Riddhi Promoters Pvt.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-7

ITA/227/2015HC Delhi27 Mar 2015

Section 143(1)Section 68

Smt. Harini M Shetty vs. ACIT

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1154/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shankar Prasad, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 131Section 68

…at in the matter of making addition u/s. 68 or 69 of the Act, the AO has a discretion not to make an addition even in the absence of satisfactory explanation and in this regard drew our attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC). According to the ld. counsel, the circumstances pointed out by the assessee before the CIT(A) viz., disbursement of the loan by the assessee in the form of cheques, disclosure of the loan in the balance sheet and repayment of the loan in the form of DDs should have been taken note of by the revenue authorities and they should not have exerc…