CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand

192 Taxmann 264High Court2010#2698 most cited

What is CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand authority for?

When income is accepted or estimated under presumptive taxation schemes like Section 44AD or Section 44AE, the assessee is not obligated to explain each and every cash deposit in their bank account. Consequently, additions made for unexplained peak credit in such cases are not sustainable.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand · Section 44AD · Section 44AE · presumptive taxation · cash deposits bank account · explanation of entries · unexplained peak credit · undisclosed income · presumptive income · obligation to explain · Section 69 · Section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 44ADSection 115BBESection 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 153cofsection 153b(1)(b)section 153b(1)initial assessment yearon money receiptsection 158bdsection 44adsection 131(1)section 271(l)(c)section 44asection 292bbsection 44

Judgments citing CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand

M Dirauvelu (HUF), Walajapet vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 266/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.263 & 264/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri M. Duraivelu, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 50, Komutty Street, Ward 2, Walajapet, Vellore Vellore Dist – 632 513 Pan: Aespd9682H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.265 & 266/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri M. Duraivelu (Huf), Vs The Income Tax Officer, 50, Komutty Street, Ward 2, Walajapet, Vellore Vellore Dist – 632 513 Pan: Aaehd1433L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 148Section 250(6)Section 44A

…ctively in respect of Shri M. Duraivelu and Rs.256500/- & Rs.256500/- for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively in respect of Shri M. Duraivelu (HUF). 5. As per the rulings of various High Courts Particularly in CIT Vs Surinder Pal Anand {2010} 192 Taxmann 264 {Punjab & Haryana} case, it is held that when income is estimated u/s 44AE, the assessee is not under any obligation to explain the entries in the bank account. Hence the addition of Rs.256500/- & Rs. 340000/- for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively in respect of Shri M. Duraivelu and Rs.256500/- & Rs.340000/- for the assessme…

The Income Tax Offcer, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Vikram Mohanlal Rawal, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3007/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

…SMC-ITA No. 3007/Ahd/2015 ITO Vs. Shri Vikram Mohanlal Rawal Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member ] Assessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer ......…………......Appellant Ward 3(2)(10), Ahmedabad Vs. Shri Vikram Mohanlal Rawal .......................Respondent 19, Akshar Bungalows, Near Smruti Mandir, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad - 380050 [PAN : ADAPR 1980 K] Appearances by: Santosh Karnani for the appellant Sunil Talati for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of pronouncing the order :…

Sri Naresh Kumar Sharma, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 48(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1486/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma.............................…………………………………Appellant C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babuy Street, Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Akups6148K] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 48(3) 3, Govt. Place (W) Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 05, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) 14, Kolkata, Dated 28.04.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering That The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Not Completing The Assessment By Applying The Provision Of Section 44Ae Of The Act, 1961 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Without Prejudice The Ground No 1 The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Of A Sum Of Rs. 21,52,648/- Under The Head ‘Undisclosed Income’.

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (SMC), KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma.............................…………………………………Appellant C/o Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babuy Street, Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : AKUPS6148K] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 48(3) 3, Govt. Place (W) Kolkata - 700001 Appearances by: Shri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding…