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

Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1364 and 1365/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Vs. The Assessing Officer, Flat No.8, 2nd Floor, Ward-12(1), Pune B3 Building, Parshwa Vihar Society, Sun City Road, Sinhgad, Pune 411 051 Maharashtra PAN : ACIPJ5773B Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajendra Agiwal And Shri Krishna Zanwar Respondent by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of hearing : 06.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANI…

Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

DCIT(Central Circle)-3(3), Mumbai vs. Juicy International Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Avaada Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 4388/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250

…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 appellant as also held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 103 Тахтап 382/237 ITR 570. 10. Hence, the initial onus is upon the appellant to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68 of the Act. These are: (i) identity of the investors, (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) Genuineness of the transaction. 11. The said provision casts the initial onus to prove the nature of credit on the…

Purva, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1220/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…could not be mechanically invoked, therefore, the entire amount of cash deposits made in her bank account during the subject year could not be held as her income, and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570. 4 Purva, Hyderabad vs. ITO 5. The CIT(A), however, did not find favour with the assessee’s explanation. It was observed by him that it was improbable for any prudent person to keep a substantial amount of cash withdrawals at home for nearly two years without utilization, and that the assessee had not substantiated the availability of the claimed…

Dilipsinh Ranjitsinh Chauhan, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 relating to reopening is not adjudicated, and Ground No

ITA 1542/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt.Year : 2010-11 Dilipsinh Ranjitsinh Chauhan ITO, Ward-1(3)(1) C-4, Laxmikunj Society Vadodara. Nr. Maheshar Nagar Subhanpura, Vadodara PAN : AHAPC 7712 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Srendra Modiani, AR Assessee by : Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR Revenue by…

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ar Police (PB No. 39-41). The Revenue has failed to disprove this uncontroverted evidence, and as held in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349 SC) the burden lies on the department to prove ownership of unexplained money. Further, in CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570 SC) the Supreme Court clarified that additions under Section 69A are discretionary and cannot be made where credible explanations are available. Since the authorities ignored this crucial evidence and proceeded purely on presumptions in violation of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713 SC), the addition merits deletion toto. Ground No. 4: Un…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…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. 73. Section 68 of the Act provides that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

M/S. Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Temple, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward-2 (Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1913/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Arulmigu Ekambaranathar I.T.O., Temple, Vs. Ward-2 (Exemptions), No. 121, T.S. No. 2796, Ekambaranathar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Sannadhi St., Nungambakkam, Kanchipuram-631502. Chennai-600034. Pan No. Aaaja 1794 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…see by holding that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to substantiate the nature and source of the deposits and rental income. The ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) noted that the onus is on the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit and failure to do so empowers the AO to treat such amounts as unexplained income. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3 ITA1913/Chny/2025 M/s Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Temple. Vs ITO 6. Before us, nobody…

Ashish Shashikant Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1400/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Ashish Shashikant Choksi, Asst. Cit Central Circle-6(2), 58, Presidency Society, Mangalik, Room No. 450, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 7Th N S Road, Jamnabhai School, Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), West, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aebpc 1539 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh

Section 132Section 139(5)Section 69A

…5 We find support for this view from the decision of the Hon’ble We find support for this view from the decision of the Hon’ble We find support for this view from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan [(1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)], [(1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)], wherein it was held that although the discretion conferred on the wherein it was held that although the discretion conferred on the wherein it was held that although the discretion conferred on the Assessing Officer under Section 69 (and by necessary extension Assessing Officer under Section 69 (and by necessary…

Bhim Singh, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 740/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.740/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhim Singh C-24, Ambabari Metal Colony Jaipur - 302 023 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: CFRPS 5909A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri G.M. Mehta, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of He

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…is strictly applied in line with its anti-abuse objective. Once the amount is held to be unexplained under section 69A, the AO is required to apply section 115BBE for taxation at the prescribed rate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [(1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)] has clarified that where the explanation is found unsatisfactory, the income may be brought to tax under the deeming provisions. Since the addition u/s 69A stands confirmed, the consequential application of section 115BBE is also upheld. Accordingly, ground no. 3 is dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 18. 2.2 During the cou…

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat

Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

…that suspicion of d that suspicion of highest degree cannot partake the direct documentary evidences highest degree cannot partake the direct documentary evidences highest degree cannot partake the direct documentary evidences filed on record. {P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) and Pooja Bhatt filed on record. {P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) and Pooja Bhatt filed on record. {P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) and Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT (73 ITD 205 Mum v. ACIT (73 ITD 205 Mum-ITAT)). There is no contrary documentary ITAT)). There is no contrary documentary evidence available on record to disprove t evidence available on…

Salvantsingh Swarupsingh Pallu, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 949/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsalvantsingh Swarupsingh Pallu, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. A1, 204, Mangal Marvel Ward 1(1)(1), Apartment, Tarsali, Vadodara. Vadodara-390009 [Pan : Alqpp 5330 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

…e well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that if the assessee provides a plausible explanation supported by documents, addition under Section 69 cannot be sustained. (Reliance placed on CIT P.K. Nourjahan (237 ITR 570 SC), Krishna Devi Vs. CIT (434 ITR 501 Del), Meghraj v. ITO (128) taxmann.com 404 (Raj). 7. Ground No. 7: Arbitrary Estimation and Ignoring Acceptable Rural Practices The authorities erred in not appreciating the rural economic practices where cash is retained for longer periods and not necessarily banked immediately. It is settled practice tha…

Govindasamy Bharathiraja, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Mr. Govindasamy Bharathiraja, The Ito, Old 4, New 6, Balaji Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), 3Rd Cross Street, Velachery, Chennai. Chennai-600 042. [Pan: Albpb 2971 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. Mr. Govindasamy Bharathiraja, The ITO, Old 4, New 6, Balaji Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), 3rd Cross Street, Velachery, Chennai. Chennai-600 042. [PAN: ALBPB 2971 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Resp…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Himatnagar, Himatnagar vs. Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 934/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Ward-1, बनाम/ Asian Parivar, V/S. Himatnagar. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D & C.O No.18/Ahd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Asian Parivar, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar. Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

…source of source were explained with credible evidence, no addition under section 69 was warranted. The assessee also placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 in support of his contentions. Allegations of synchronized trading and layering were denied, and it was IT No.934/Ahd/2024 with C.O No.18-Ahd-2024 ITO vs. Kalidas J Patel Asst. Year :2017-18 6 contended that no independent inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer to establish any collusive arrangement. The assessee specifically contended that o…

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1488/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Giya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80P

…Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC) The Supreme Court held that where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of imposing penalty. CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan(1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) The Supreme Court held that where the question of law was debatable, penalty cannot be imposed. In the light of the above arguments and case laws, it is respectfully submitted that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is not justified and should be deleted. The assessee has not concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particular…

Sanjivani Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahkari Pat Sanstha, Bhandara vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandraprakash BhutadaFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 250Section 292BSection 4(1)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…ained before taxing them: "Where any sum is found credited... and the assessee offers no explanation... or the explanation offered is not satisfactory..." Here, no specific sum was identified as unexplained, barring such addition. CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC): The AO cannot reject a satisfactory explanation without positive evidence of falsity. 4. Unjustified Demand for One-to-One Correlation: The CIT(A)'s reliance on a "one-to-one correlation" is legally untenable: Section 69A does not mandate transaction-level proof beyond reasonable explanation, nor does Section 44AA (maintenance of accounts)…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…satisfactoriness of the explanation need and did not automatically result in deeming the value of the investment to be the income of the assessee. That is still a matter within the discretion of the Officer and therefore of the Tribunal". [Smt. P.K. Noorjehan 237 ITR 570 (SC)]. i) The ld. AO further did not allow all the expenses incurred by the Appellant for earning such income. It is submitted that all these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business carried on by the Appellant. The reasons assigned by the ld. AO that no business was carried out is not correct. It is not a c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68