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

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…y" and not "shall" in section 69 A, these provisions vest discretion in the assessing officer to consider all the circumstances and to decide whether or not the amount in question is the income of the assessee [CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 103 Taxman 382/237 ITR 570 (SC)]. Even if the assessee's explanation is not satisfactory, still the Assessing officer cant treat as unexplained the amounts in question if the surrounding circumstances require such a treatment, like in case of a minor individual or student having no sources of income for making the investments in question or in case of a person having meage…

M/S Nikhil Estate P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT Central Circle (3) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 28/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. ACIT (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. NO.B-3 PU- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCN 8056 D Assessee by Shri S.S. Solanki, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 09.06.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ord…

M/S Supremo India Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait Central 3, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. ACIT Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAFCS 9822 C Assessee by Shri S.S. Solanki, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 07.06.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.12.2022 of Commissioner of…

Santosh Chopra, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 220/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 220/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Chopra, D-3, Faristha Complex, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acipj9443J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 220/RPR/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Chopra, D-3, Faristha Complex, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN : ACIPJ9443J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Praveen Jain & Smt. Priya Godheja, CAs Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 09.05.2023 घोष…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2664/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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. 17. In the case of CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 Taxman 80F/59 ITR 78 (SC) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2662/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Mr. Chhitar Singh Bhikaji, Khandwa vs. ITO-1 Khandwa, Khandwa

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

ITA 653/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chhitar Singh Bhikaji Ito-1 Village-Sihada Khandwa Vs. Tah.- Khandwa Dist- Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Frhps 0744 A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2023

Section 139Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69

…on the various decisions on the point that when the assessee is having no other source of income then the source of deposit explained by the assessee cannot be rejected. The decisions relied upon by the assessee are as under: a. CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan (smt.) 237 ITR 570 (SC) b. Aurobindo Sanitary Stores vs. CTC 276 ITR 549 (Orissa) Thus the assessee contended that addition made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has referred to the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO which is reproduced in the assessment order and submitted that the assessee himself had admit…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) Surat vs. Mega Collections Pvt Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 311/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.311/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcm3809C

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…t "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 also held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 23. In the assessee`s case there is no material that the assessee company had collected on money which could be routed back in the investment. The assessee had discharged primary onus of providing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the said shareholders. The assessee has also proved the source of the source. Our view is also forti…

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./IT(SS)A No.15 & ITA No.619/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/h. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABLPP 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.A. राज" की ओर से Respondent by : Shri Ashok B…

Kanchan Plastics Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 133(6)Section 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. 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S Galaxi Filaments, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 35/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.35/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Galaxy Filaments Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Room 13-14, Sanskruti Industrial Vs. 6Th No.612, Floor, Aayakar Estate, Nr. Diamond Rose Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Surat- Nursery, Laskana, Surat-395013 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapfg 6252 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kuamr, Sr-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.35/SRT/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner of M/s Galaxy Filaments Income-tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Room 13-14, Sanskruti Industrial Vs. 6th No.612, Floor, Aayakar Estate, Nr. Diamond Rose Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Surat- Nursery, Laskana, Surat-395013 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPFG 6252 M (Assessee ) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Vinod Kuamr, Sr-D.…

Dhanpat Raj Khatri - HUF, Jaisalmer vs. ITO, Jaisalmer

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

ITA 8/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

Section 148Section 68

…r enquiry and contention of the 4 ITA 8/JODH/2020 SHRI DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI, HUF VS ITO, JAISALMER assessee cannot be ignored on the opinion of assessing officer. The ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570. Further the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (W.P. No. 1732 dated 4-02-2020). He further submitted that the tax payer has declared higher income in return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act voluntarily and there is nothing to prove that the…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

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

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…hall". 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 SC. 26. As discussed section 68 of the Act casts the initial burden to prove the nature and source of credit in whose books the credit entry is found i.e. the assessee. Hence, the initial burden of proof is upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit entry, which he can do by adducing the following evidence to prove :- (i) Identi…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

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

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)

Section 143(1)

…iscretion to the assessing officer, as can be seen from its provisions. M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. This view has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan' (1000) 237 ITR 570 (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/advance being credit on account of goods to be supplied to these parties, it is not mandatory therefore that in the absence of verification of the creditors, the same need to be added…

Sanat Kumar Sinha, Khedamara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 52/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.52/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sanat Kumar Sinha Village- Khedamara, Post-Dhudur, Jamul-Bhilai (C.G.) Pan: Bcdps0921E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…and applying the test of human probabilities. In the backdrop of the aforesaid principle of preponderance of human probability, I am also reminded of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.K Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). In the said case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the term “may” used in Section 69 of the Act confers a discretion on the Income-tax Officer in the matter of treating the source of an investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee, as the income of the assessee, and the Income-tax Officer is not oblig…

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6806/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)) - 37, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 U/Sec Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57Section 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. 6.12 During the remand proceedings, the appellant has submitted Confirmations, Copy of Acknowledgement and Copies of the Bank statements. Iftheabove referred principles are applied to the facts of the case under consideration, it Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai. can be seen that the identity of the creditors has been established as they are having P…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa vs. Pritham & Prathik Hospitals Private Limited, Kadapa

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

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Pritham and Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. PAN : AAHCP6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (in ITA 97/Hyd/2019) M/s. Pritham and Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. PAN : AAHCP6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee by: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue by:…

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…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.…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur vs. Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 236/RPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Ito-3 (4), Raipur Vs Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.09/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Rpr/2017) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agrawal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-I, Raipur, Dated 17.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection To The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds:- 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,35,21,935/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Without Appreciating The Facts On Record?” 2. “Whether Cit(A) Committed An Error In Law In Not Appreciating The Purport Of Provisions Of Sections 68 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 250(4)Section 68

…g judgments in its case law compilation paper book. On satisfaction u/s.68 i) CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) ii) Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 256 ITR 331 Raj. iii) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 SC iv) CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 SC On discharge of burden u/s 68 v) ITO vs. Smt. Pratima Ashar (2019) 107 taxmann.com 135 MumTrib dt. 06.06.2019 vi) Pawan Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO-2(2), Bilaspur Tax Case No. 24 of2011 Chhattisgarh HC vii) CIT Vs. Abdul Aziz (2012) 82 CCH 248 ChattHC viii) ITO-1, Raigarh Vs. Koushal Agrawal 22 ITJ 233 ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur dt. 18.07.2013 ix) C…