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 69ASection 143(3)Section 115BBESection 147Section 148Section 68Section 132Section 69

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsection 132(4a)loose papersaddition under section 68unexplained moneysection 69section 158unexplained investmentsection 158bsection 115bbsection 131section 115bbe

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

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Gadumaria, Raigarh

In the result appeal ITA No

ITA 94/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal & Shri N.C.Gupta, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 131(1)Section 68

…the evidence or material in possession and then come forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. The present case falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer, after noting the facts, merely rejected the same." 11. CIT Vs P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 SC "In other words, a discretion has been conferred on the Income Tax Officer under section 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as the income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory and the said discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the particular cas…

Shrimati Parmjit Kaur, Taran Taran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(4), Amritsar

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

ITA 101/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

…amount deposited in the bank was undisclosed income arising from the business or from any other activities. No evidence has been brought on record by the lower authorities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Smt. P.K Noorjahan [1999] 103 Taxman 382/237 ITR 570 it was held as "3. Shri Ranbir Chandra, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue, has urged that the Tribunal as well as the High Court were in error in their interpretation of section 69. The submission is that once the explanation offered by the assessee for the sources of the investments found to be non-acceptable the only course open to…

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

…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. 18. The Hon. Supreme Court, in Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs. CIT pointed out that the onus on the assessee has to be understood with reference to the facts of each case and proper inference drawn from the facts. If the prima facie inference on the fact is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the Revenue... Once these d…

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ous year can be added u/s 68 if the assessee's explanation was satisfactory. However, in this case Rs.3,71,95,540/- is previous year balance. This amount cannot be added in this year in view of the above section and also Supreme Court case in CIT vs Noorjahan 237 ITR 570. Hence, this addition of Rs.3,71,95,540/- has to be deleted. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar ITA No.697/Mum./2018 CO No. 115/Mum./2019 With respect to balance amount as here statement was recorded u/s 131 and lender has also submitted Income tax return which proves identity of the lender and all these transaction of lending and repaying are carried th…

Rakyan Beverages Private Limited, Raigarh vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane (DR)
Section 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 also held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 17. Hence, the initial burden is upon the assessee 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. 18. The said provision casts the initial burden to prove the nature of credit on th…

Shri Naresh Jhanwar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 260/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 199CSection 292CSection 68

…eeming provisions of s. 69 cannot be invoked in this case. For making addition under s. 69, there ought to be some material to prove that outgoings taken by the borrowers belonged to the assessee.—CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 155 C.T.R. (SC) 509: (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied on. Where certain document is found in the search from the premises of the assessee then a presumption is drawn under s. 132(4A) that 'transactions recorded therein belonged to the assessee. But such presumption is not absolute. Presumption under s. 132(4A) is rebuttable as the words used in the section are "it may be presumed". It is…

Shri Naresh Jhanwar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 259/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 199CSection 292CSection 68

…eeming provisions of s. 69 cannot be invoked in this case. For making addition under s. 69, there ought to be some material to prove that outgoings taken by the borrowers belonged to the assessee.—CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 155 C.T.R. (SC) 509: (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied on. Where certain document is found in the search from the premises of the assessee then a presumption is drawn under s. 132(4A) that 'transactions recorded therein belonged to the assessee. But such presumption is not absolute. Presumption under s. 132(4A) is rebuttable as the words used in the section are "it may be presumed". It is…

Shri Jagtar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 638/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 148

…IT(A). By any reckoning, the order of Id. CIT(A) is too arbitrary, irrational and unjustified to be sustained. 5 Jagtar Singh v. ITO It is contextually relevant to invite attention to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs P.K Noorjahan 237 ITR 570(1999), holding thus (head note): “Income from undisclosed sources—Addition under s. 69—Discretion of AO— Intention of Parliament in enacting s. 69 was to confer a discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the unexplained source of investment as income of assessee—ITO is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case…

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Premier Supplies & Services P Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 15(2)(2) V. M/S. Premier Supplies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No. 47, Satya Sai Plaza Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector-11, Plot No. 5 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Panvel, Navi Mumbai - 410206 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccg2655A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…sfactory explanation about cash credit but does not mentions the capability and creditworthiness of other parties involved in the transaction, in our case appellant has explained his capability to perform transaction also in case of CIT vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC), has similar phraseology employs the word "may" and 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 assessee. Ld. AO should also look into corroborative evidence before applying section 68 in any case. We also place reliance…

Ramkrushna Zilbaji Thakre, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrad -4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr. Milind Bhusare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…eserves to be deleted. I hold. so." The same proposition has been followed by Jaipur Tribunal 111 the case of Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 7(3) ITA No. 13/JP/2020.Further reliance is placed on ratio in the decision of CIT Vs Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 where it has been held that even if source of investment is not found to be satisfactory explained no addition can be made in the peculiar facts of the case, Considering principles of merger and considering that order of CIT (A) is accepted by the department ,it is humbly prayed as hereunder Prayer: It is humbly prayed that kindly allow the appea…

Anandiben Jayantilal Shah (Through L/H Shailesh Jayantilal Shah), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 821/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Anandiben Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2 (Through Legal Heir) Vs Gandhinagar. Shri Shailesh Jayantilal Shah 55-Girish Society, ‘D’ Cabin Sabarmati, Ahemdabad 380019. Pan : Eybps 0556 L

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 68

…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 SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anandiben Jayantilal Shah ITO, Ward-2 (Through Legal Heir) Vs Gandhinagar. Shri Shailesh Jayantilal Shah 55-Girish Society, ‘D’ Cabin Sabarmati, Ahemdabad 380019. PAN : EYBPS 0556 L (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Vivek Chavda, AR Revenue b…

M/S. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Village Matel, Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 83/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: 12/05/2022
Section 143(3)Section 263

…-17 - 9 - regarded as undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act. In support of his contention, assessee relied on following pronouncements: • Supreme Court in case of Bharat engineering & Construction Co. -83 ITR 187, • Supreme Court in case of P. K. Noorjahan- 237 ITR 570, • Gujarat High Court in case of Mitesh Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd. - 258 ITR 278, • Gujarat High Court in case of Green Finance Ltd. -judgment dated 10.11.2014 in Tax Appeal No. 67-68 of 2001, • Delhi High Court in case of Five Vision Promoters Pvt Ltd. - 380 ITR 289, • Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Praful (Agarwal) Art Prints Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 3568/Ahm/2…

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 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 also held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 10. Hence, the initial onus is upon the assessee 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 reci…

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 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 also held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 10. Hence, the initial onus is upon the assessee 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 reci…

Sri Tanzing Tashi, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 187/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A No.187/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Tanzing Tashi, Ito (International Taxation), Vs. O B M Road, Koppa, Ward – 1(1), Bylukuppe, Periyapatna Taluk Bengaluru. Mysore – 571 104. Pan : Aotpt 1710 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 133(6)Section 69

…s non- resident during the year under consideration, there is no scope to presume that the assessee had generated unaccounted income. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. P K Noor Jahan 237 ITR 570, the Ld AR submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the explanation furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, he prayed that the addition of Rs.15 lakhs should be deleted. 4. The Ld DR, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee had sold the agricultural land in the Financial Year 2013-14 and it is unlikely that the assessee has kept the…

Shri Jivrajbhai H. Balar, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 1245/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) & Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…used as tool for delaying the proceedings and using such experts in every case. 24.4 The above interpretation that ‘May’ does not mean 'Shall’ is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in case of Smt. P.L Noorjahan reported in 237 ITR 570 (SC). Therefore, the undersigned is under statutory obligation to follow the same. 24.5 The next issue involved is whether there is a prime facie case in this appeal for reference to the DVO? The answer is 'NO' for the reasons discussed in para 22 and 23. Without prejudice to the same, since appellant has filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble High C…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 153/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 80l

…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. C…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…e, the deeming provisions of s. 69 cannot be invoked in this case. For making addition under s 69, there ought to be some material to prove that outgoings taken by the borrowers belonged to the assessee CIT vs. Smt PK. Noorjahan (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 509 (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied on. Where certain document is found in the search from the premises of the assessee then a presumption is drawn under s 132(4A) that transactions recorded therein belonged to the assessee. But such presumption is not absolute. Presumption under s. 132(4A) is rebuttable as the words used in the section are "it may be presumed". It is…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1231/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…e, the deeming provisions of s. 69 cannot be invoked in this case. For making addition under s 69, there ought to be some material to prove that outgoings taken by the borrowers belonged to the assessee CIT vs. Smt PK. Noorjahan (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 509 (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied on. Where certain document is found in the search from the premises of the assessee then a presumption is drawn under s 132(4A) that transactions recorded therein belonged to the assessee. But such presumption is not absolute. Presumption under s. 132(4A) is rebuttable as the words used in the section are "it may be presumed". It is…

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…e, the deeming provisions of s. 69 cannot be invoked in this case. For making addition under s 69, there ought to be some material to prove that outgoings taken by the borrowers belonged to the assessee CIT vs. Smt PK. Noorjahan (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 509 (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied on. Where certain document is found in the search from the premises of the assessee then a presumption is drawn under s 132(4A) that transactions recorded therein belonged to the assessee. But such presumption is not absolute. Presumption under s. 132(4A) is rebuttable as the words used in the section are "it may be presumed". It is…