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.

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 570)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 378/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 The ACIT cuke Nisha Jain Vs. Central Circle E-15, Ballabh Bari Kota Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABLPJ 8118L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya Adv Shri Hemang Garg…

Arvindkumar Amulkh Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2 (3), Ahmeadabad

ITA 577/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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. 10. Thus taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and, in particular, the fact, that the Assessing Officer has not disallowed the interest claimed/paid in relation to these credits in the assessment year under consideration or even in the subsequent years, and tax deducted at source has been deducted out…

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…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." 17. The question of addition under Section 68 in a case of capital introduced by the partners was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax v Taj Borewells4, and taking note of the fact that Section 68 is a charging section and also a deeming provision it was held that once the firm had offered explanation and established that the capital was co…

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…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." 17. The question of addition under Section 68 in a case of capital introduced by the partners was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax v Taj Borewells4, and taking note of the fact that Section 68 is a charging section and also a deeming provision it was held that once the firm had offered explanation and established that the capital was co…

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 164/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…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." 17. The question of addition under Section 68 in a case of capital introduced by the partners was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax v Taj Borewells4, and taking note of the fact that Section 68 is a charging section and also a deeming provision it was held that once the firm had offered explanation and established that the capital was co…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

ITA 4758/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA Nos.4757 & 4758/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 &15-16) ART DECO Mumbai Private Limited ITO, Ward 3(3)(3) 32/A, Laxmi Industrial 672, Aayakar Bhavan, Estate New land road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACU2004K Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR Date of hearing: 09.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: ITA No.4757/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 4758/Mum/2…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

ITA 4757/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA Nos.4757 & 4758/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 &15-16) ART DECO Mumbai Private Limited ITO, Ward 3(3)(3) 32/A, Laxmi Industrial 672, Aayakar Bhavan, Estate New land road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACU2004K Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR Date of hearing: 09.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: ITA No.4757/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 4758/Mum/2…

Vivek Prahladbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(10), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vivek Prahladbhai Patel The Income Tax Officer, B-302, Balaji Greens, Vs Ward-4(1)(10), B/H Sitaram Complex, Chhani- Vadodara Canal, Vadodara-391740 Gujarat Pan: Babpp7859 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Visakapatnam (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”), Dated 5-1-2024, For The Assessment Year2017-18, Whereby The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”). Vivek Prahladbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 69A

…has simply dismissed the affidavits without assigning any cogent reasons. The CIT(A), too, has upheld the AO’s order without addressing the merits of the affidavits and the explanation provided by the assessee. 8. In the case of CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the burden of proof is on the revenue Vivek Prahladbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 4 to show that the amount in question is income of the assessee. In the instant case, the affidavits provided by the assessee's parents, explaining the source of cash deposits, were disregarded without any substan…

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…k pertains. III. Following decided cases in which it was held that section 69 is not applicable on the excess stock found during the survey. The value of an unexplained investment not recorded in the assessee's books of accounts may be assessed as income. (i) 237 ITR 570 SC- CIT Vs Noorjaha. (ii) 247 ITR 105- CIT Vs Satyapalan. (iii) 251 ITR 671- CIT Vs Mahim. (iv) In Gaurish Steels (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (2015) 43 ITR (Tribunal) 414 Chandigarh ITAT held, " Nowhere in his order the Assessing Officer has been able to bring on record the fact that the income surrendered during the course of survey was not out of the busin…

Anil Bhutani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue

ITA 430/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anil Bhutani DCIT D-117, Preet Vihar Vs. Central Circle-1 East Delhi Noida Delhi-110092 PAN-AHIPB2545C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by Sh. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur [hereinafter referred t…

Smt. Aruna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth N. Segu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144CSection 44ASection 68

…ITA No.537/Bang/2024 Smt. Aruna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Aruna No.6K, 462/1 Adarsha Blooms Gopal Reddy Layout Banasawadi ITO Vs. Bangalore North 560 043 Ward-1(2)(2) Karnataka Bangalore PAN NO : BDMPA7455D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sukruth N. Segu, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department. Date of Hearing : 22.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE…

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

ITA 5067/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

…see fails to satisfy the Assessing Officer about the outstanding credits, the same are mandatorily required to be added as income of the assessee. [Para 18] This view has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan' [1999] 237 ITR 570/103 Taxman 382 (SC). The Assessing Officer has to take into account the overall facts. Accordingly, in the case of the assessee the overall facts need to be considered. The amount outstanding being credit on account of purchases which have been exported by the assessee, it is not mandatory that in the absence of verification of the creditors, the…

Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/HYD/2023[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. Pan : Agupk4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. PAN : AGUPK4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue by: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR. Date of hearing: 19.03.2024 Date of pronouncement: 22.03.2024 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Co…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1161/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2011-12 Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata- Vs. 3(3), Kolkata. 700069. (Pan: Aaecs5627C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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] 103 Taxman 382/237 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." ii) In the case of ITO v. Goodwill Cresec Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 4151/ Del/2010, order dated 25.01.2012, held this issue in favour of the assessee: "12 .... In the present case,…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…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] 103 Taxman 382/237 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." ii) In the case of ITO v. Goodwill Cresec Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 4151/ Del/2010, order dated 25.01.2012, held this issue in favour of the assessee: "12 .... In the present case,…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…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] 103 Taxman 382/237 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." ii) In the case of ITO v. Goodwill Cresec Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 4151/ Del/2010, order dated 25.01.2012, held this issue in favour of the assessee: "12 .... In the present case,…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…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] 103 Taxman 382/237 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." ii) In the case of ITO v. Goodwill Cresec Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 4151/ Del/2010, order dated 25.01.2012, held this issue in favour of the assessee: "12 .... In the present case,…

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 10. In a case wherein the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act because the lenders of loan to assessee did not turn up before him [AO], the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78, held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged, if the identity of the cr…

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

…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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 17. In a case wherein the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act because the lenders of loan to assessee did not turn up before him [AO], the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the cred…

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…ing account. vi. Following decided cases in which it was held that section 69 is not applicable on the excess stock found during the survey. The value of an unexplained investment not recorded in the assessee's books of accounts may be assessed as income. (i) 237 ITR 570 SC- CIT Vs Noorjaha. (ii) 247 ITR 105- CIT Vs Satyapalan. (iii) 251 ITR 671- CIT Vs Mahim. (iv) In Gaurish Steels (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (2015) 43 ITR (Tribunal) 414 Chandigarh ITAT held, " Nowhere in his order the Assessing Officer has been able to bring on record the fact that the income surrendered during the course of survey was not out of the busin…

CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

What is CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

Arvindkumar Amulkh Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2 (3), Ahmeadabad

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

Vivek Prahladbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(10), Vadodara

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

Anil Bhutani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

Smt. Aruna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata.

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Kolkata

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala