Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chunni Lal

211 ITR 11Reported decision1995#15357 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chunni Lal

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…i. Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn, (P.) Ltd. reported in (1886) 25 Taxman 80F (SC) vide order dated 19.03.1986. Copy placed at page 1 to 5 of judgement set ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chunnilal as reported in 211 ITR 11. Copy placed at page 6 of judgement set regarding source of source. iii) Judgment in the case of Mis. Loil Overseas Food Ltd. vs. ITO as reported in (2017) 88 taxmann.com 782 (Chandigarh - Trib.). iv) Judgment in the case of Income-tax Officer. Vs. Swaran Fastners CITreported in (133 taxmann.com 454 Chandigarh-b) vide order dated 18.02.2021 Copy p…

JAGMOHAN KAUR BAJWA LEGAL HEIR OF LT.JASKIRAN SINGH BAJWA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 69A

…IT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) • M/s Suraj Stones Corporate Ltd. Vs. ITO, Bengaluru in ITA No. 52/Bang/2020 vide order dt. 18/02/2021 (ITAT Banglore) • Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 723 (Mum) • Shri Chunni Lal reported in 211 ITR 11 (Statue) (P&H) 6.4 It was submitted that the deceased assessee apart from declaration from the depositors had also furnished evidences in the form of bank pass book of Shri Maninder Singh Sahi in Canada coupled with the remittance advices which were not doubted, therefore the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) upon the Judgment of Human Probability…

SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1536/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs. 17,00,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT

Section 132Section 133A

…xplanation which has not been accepted is on surmises and conjectures. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the source of source cannot be questioned as per binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Chuni Lal as reported in 211 ITR 11 (Statute) 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 17,00,000/-. 3. The facts related to this issue in brief are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of…

AMARJEET BEETON HUF,DHURI vs. ACIT, C-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1547/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Bohra

Section 131Section 68

…ned with all the creditors but still, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider the fact that the source of source cannot be asked for as per binding judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sh.Chuni Lai as reported in 211 ITR 11 (Statute), and where the SLP of the department has been dismissed. 3. The assessee has received Rs. 5,20,000/- from three persons namely Smt. Kanta Devi of Rs. 1,50,000/- , Shri. Ram Ratan of Rs. 2,65,000/-, and Shri. Ram Lal of Rs. 1,05,000/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the grounds that Shri. Ram Lal and Shri. Ram Ratan coul…

AMARJEET BEETON HUF,DHURI vs. ITO, W-IV(3), MALERKOTLA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Bohra

Section 131Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

Appeal stands dismissed,

ITTA/125/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…03) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati); of the Jharkhand High Court in Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chunni Lal, (1995) 211 ITR 11 (ST) SC. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue Smt. Archana Shahi opposed the appeal and placed before us the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161: (2019) 15 SCC 529. The essential ingredients for proving the unsecu…