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

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 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

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 ca…

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 397/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pradeep Garg Road, Ajmer स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPG8818D अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Sh. Hemang Gargieya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date…

Mohammed Saleem Abdulkader Kajalwala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 536/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2015-16 Mohammed Saleem Income Tax Officer, Abdulkader Kajalwala, Ward-3(1)(3), Bakri Pole, Mogalwade, Vs Vadodara Opp. Madine Masjid, Vadodara-390017 PAN: AAXPK7544C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Kaushani Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 27-02-2025 Date of pronouncement : 11-04-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by t…

Molley Jayaprakash, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 432/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Suresh Kumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 115BSection 143(3)

…ed that the CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.34 lakh rejecting the bonafide explanation of the appellant. He further submitted by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt.P.K.Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC), that when the assessee offers bonafide explanation in support of the source of cash deposits, the assessing authority is not justified in making the addition. It is further submitted that the lower authorities ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the appellant in support of the cash deposits. 5. On the other hand, the learned…

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-2, Madurai, Meenambalpuram Madurai vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1651/CHNY/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1651/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Income Tax, Circle -2, 79, Sanjeevi Street, Meenakshi Nagar, Madurai. Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012. [Pan:Adppj7550C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised Ground No. 1 To 2.3, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…ection 60A is not applicable to the facts of the case as the assessee is not the owner of the money being the entire cash deposits in the bank account and in the light of the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court decision in the case of Smt. P K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570) and should have assessed only the profit and not the turnover." 6.8.14 The undersigned has carefully examined the issue under consideration. The Appellant in the original Return of Income filed has claimed only salary income and income from other sources being the interest income upon fixed deposits. The ADI (Inv.) had an information about the c…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.115 to 120/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 Shri Jaipal Singh, 35, Chitragupt Nagar, 1st Imli Wala Phatak, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AKDPS 1712 Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA & S…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.115 to 120/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 | बनाम | DCIT, Shri Jaipal Singh, | | Central Circle- 2, 35, Chitragupt Nagar, 1st Imli | Jaipur Wala Phatak, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AKDPS 1712 Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S.R.…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1469JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Paras Mal Jain 535,Tiwari Ji Ka Bagh, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur 302 004 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1 Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABTPJ 9660 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R.K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Arvind…

Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha, Jalgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1453/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…ged owner of the said paper. v) The Assessing Officer has made the addition by way of undisclosed investment which is entirely erroneous because the respective family members have already entered the sale proceeds in their books. In the case of P.K.Noorjahan [237 ITR 570 (SC)], it is held that, "The submission is that the word 'may' in section 69 should be read as 'shall". We are unable to agree. As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the corresponding clause in the Bill which was introduced in the Parliament, the word 'shall had been used but during the course of consideration of the Bill and on the recommendation o…

Dy. CIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S Rkr Gold Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 10/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Rkr Gold Pvt Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 169, T.V. Samy Road West, Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore South, Corporate Circle-1, Aayakar Coimbatore – 641 002. Bhavan, [Pan: Aadcr-4414-M] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri.R.Clement Ramesh, Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…addition made is preposterously liable to be set aside. In support of the claim, the assessee relied on the following judgments: - Smt. Charu Aggarwal Vs.DCIT (2022) 140 taxmann.com 588 (Chandigarh Trib) - CIT Vs.Smt. P K Noorjhan 103 Taxmann 382 (SC) (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) - ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers - ITA No.253/Viz/2020, ITAT Vishakapatnam – 189 ITD 608 (2021) - B.Krishan Kumar Vs.ITO [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC) and pleaded to delete the addition made by the AO. :-8-: ITA. No: 10/Chny/2023 5.1 The ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions made and case laws relied upon by the assessee, held that…

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…lleged investment in making payment of 'free hold changes' in the assessment order dated 26.12.2008, as the addition itself is erroneous keeping with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. PK. Noorjahan reported in (1999) 237 ITR 570, after the observations made by the Id. Assessing Officer himself to the effect that the appellant did not have any source of income (other than salary income). 11. BECAUSE without prejudice to the contentions raised in grounds No. 8 & 10 above, payment of 'free hold charges' should have been considered as 'cost of improvement of the 'Capital ass…

Babulal Roshanlal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…without such evidence, invoking provisions of sec.69A is not valid and the onus is lies on the Revenue authorities to show that these assessee’s are owner of such on-money by relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) and DN Singh vs. CIT 150 taxmann.com 301 (SC). 5.2.2. He further submitted that loose papers found from the premises of Shri Praveen Maloo in search is not supported by any corroborative evidence found during the course of search to show that these assessee’s were in receipt of on- money and the notings made on ‘loose papers’ has no evident…

Patni Housing Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Taradevi Babulal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 193/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Ascent Buildhome Developers Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…lies with the taxpayer to substantiate any expenses claimed as genuine. It is the AO's duty to question and verify submissions, especially when critical evidence, like books of accounts, is not provided. Relevant Case Law • CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) • Background and Key Points: In this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed the nature of scrutiny assessment and emphasized the role of the AO in examining the evidence presented by the assessee. The AO's duty in scrutiny assessment is to critically analyze the evidence, ensuring it aligns with the Income-tax Act's provisions, rather th…

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.87/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dayal Cotspin Ltd. New Radhakishan Plots ……………. Appellant Akola 444 001 PAN – AACCD4041K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Akola Circle, Akola Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 26/11/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 04/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissio…

Citizencreidt Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4040/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 133ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.4040/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Citizen Credit Co-operative Bank DCIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Room No. 535, 5th Floor, Ltd., Citizencredit Centre, CTS No. 236, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marve Road, Orlem, Malad(W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400064. PAN : AAAAC0016F Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri J.D. Mistry / Shri Harsh Appellant /Assessee by Kothari, AR : Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT-DR Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padm…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1(2, Nagpur vs. M/S. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…Mohankala (supra), has not disputed the ratio of the judgment rendered in CIT v/s Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra) as well as in CIT v/s P.K. Noorjahan (supra) vide Para–14 & 17 as under:– “14. In CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 155.CTR (SC) 509 : (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) this Court while construing s. 69 of the Act observed that the intention of Parliamente in enacting s. 69 was to confer a discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the ITO is not obliged to as at such source of investm…