Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 68, Section 131, Section 133(6).

Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil

Q: How many judgments cite Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil (219 ITR 410), spanning 2016 to 2025.

219 ITR 410Supreme Court of India1996#6587 most cited

What is Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil authority for?

The Supreme Court upholds the addition of share capital and share premium under Section 68 when the assessee fails to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor, even if a preliminary inquiry under Section 133(6) was made.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil · Section 68 · share capital · share premium · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · addition under section 68 · genuineness of transaction · Section 133(6)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 68 Section 131 Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 5(2)share capital and share premium creditworthiness of the creditor source of source section 250(4)borrowed satisfaction admission of additional evidence addition under section 68 rule 46a share application money tangible material

Judgments citing Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil

Srimanthi Kanthimathi Kumaraswami Mudaliar Kalyanamandapam Trust, Chittoor vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 12A

…ciple of "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" which states that the, Law does not compel a man to do that which cannot possibly be performed, applies, as held in: Presidential Poll vs Unknown on 5 June, 1974, (1974) 2 SCC 33. Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the literal i…

ACIT Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Raheja Legacy Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2826/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 250Section 68

…erned, the application form itself serves as the required confirmation which bears all the details of the loan transaction. It is a trite law that the assessee cannot be expected to do which is impossible. In the case of Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410, the Supreme Court held that the law does not contemplate or require the performance of an impossible act and the same principle has been followed in number of other cases. The issue whether the appellant has A.Y. 2018-19 discharged its primary onus or not by submitting the details of the loan and copies of the application forms in respect of pa…

Raheja Legency Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2268/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 250Section 68

Sri Sankarahealth Centre, Vellore vs. CIT-Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 781/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Sri Sankara Health Centre, The Cit (Exemptions), 8, Katpadi Road, Chennai. Mottur Village, Vellore-632 006. [Pan: Aakas 6655 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…ple that the, Law does not compel a person to do what is impossible has been recognized by the Hon’ble Apex Court and followed in the following cases;- o Presidential Poll vs Unknown on 5 June, 1974, (1974) 2 SCC 33. o Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) o State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] o State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 o Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) o CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) o Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. We note that the assessee Trust filed an applicat…

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

…ITA No.900/Bang/2023 Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy #90/D, Begur Road Circle Hosur Road Bommanahalli ITO Vs. Bangalore 560 068 Ward-2(2)(7) Karnataka Bangalore PAN NO : ABPPC8134P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.R. Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This ap…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Aurangabad vs. Vishwatmak Jangli Maharaj Ashram Trust, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 861/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Abhay ShastriFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 11(1)(a)Section 115BSection 12ASection 24(2)(iia)Section 80G

…full postal address and PAN/ other ID oj the donors) would have amounted to an impossibility for the assessee and it is well settled that the law does not compel anyone to do that which they cannot possibly perJorm. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia [LIC Vs. CIT, 219 ITR 410 (SC)]. Section 115BBC(1) taxes anonymous donations, whereas section 115BBC(2) provides the exceptions to such taxation. The assessee's case as correctly held by the Ld. CIT (A), clearly falls under section 115BBC (2)" 5.2.8.2. I find the above decision of the Hon’ble Lucknow Tribunal is applicable on the facts of the case of the appellant and in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

…rishna Kaul V. Union of India (JT 1995 (9) SC 205. 208) (xvii) Attiq-ur-Rehman V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi V Nitin Bhaurao Patil (1996) 1 SC 169. 179 (xix) Life Insurance Corporation of India V. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410, (xx) 418 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112. 120 (SO) (xxi) D.Yasodamma, Gudur V. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 515, 517 (AP) (xxii) Anil Kumar Singh V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (xxiii) Abu Bucker Sait V. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad) (xxiv) Bhagavan Prasad Mishra V. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 97 (Orissa) (xxv) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Sanjay S Jain, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 90/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.90/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjay S. Jain, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, B1/2017, Regent Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtpj4942N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…n these facts, we note that there is no delay in filing of appeal. We note that assessee was not in possession of the appellate order which is required for filing of appeal. We note that Hon`ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 held that the law does not contemplate or require the performance of an impossible act – Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639], applied this maxim and held that thus, where the law creates a duty or a charge and the party is disabled to perform it without…

M/S. Exim India Oil Company Ltd, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Cuttack

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

ITA 70/CTK/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jun 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 1998-99 M/S. Exim India Oil Company M/S. Exim India Oil Company Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaace 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Tiberwal Tiberwal, Md Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 8 /6 6/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.K. TiberwalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…the entire proceeding. 'It is just like tie somebody hands and legs ask him to swim', which is practically impossible. The law does not expect the impossible on the part of the tax payer as was pointed out in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC), Section 68 of the Income Tax Act clearly specifies that any sum found credited in the books of a taxpayer, for which he offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, may be charged to income-tax as the income of the taxpayer of that…

Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-8, Ahmedabad

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254

…ttled in law ITA nos.1577/AHD/2015 with 8 others Asstt. Years 2006-07 & others 77 that, law does not contemplate or require the performance of an impossible act as held by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. CIT reported in 219 ITR 410 where it was held as under: By virtue of section 9(2) of the LIC Act, if any amount remained due towards taxes to be recovered from the predecessor, it was a liability transferred to LIC and the LIC became liable to discharge the same. It was obvious that in the surplus or deficit in any inter- valuation period relating to the LIC, which came to…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Telco Construction

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/336/2014HC Karnataka16 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260Section 40

…sessee. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VS. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. VS. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CIT, (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC), TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. VS. JCIT, 372 ITR 605, STEAM NAVIGATION CO, (1953) (P) LTD. VS. CIT, (1965) 56 ITR 52 and EMPIRE JUTE CO. VS. CIT, (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). 11 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG Vs. COMMISSIONER O…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/o 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABVPN3963B CO No. 09/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Vs Income Tax Officer, R/o 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, Ward-49(3), Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABVPN3963B Assessee by : Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Ku…

Sunil Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16

ITA 2463/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B. G. Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H L Soumya Achar,Addl.CIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ed / placed reliance on the following :- (i) SOP dt.10.01.2018 issued by CBDT. (ii) Cited Sec.56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act to submit that gift from father is not income. (iii) CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 161 Taxman 169 (SC). (iv) LIC of India Vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC). In view of the above, it was prayed that the addition of Rs.10.5 lakhs made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained gift be deleted and assessee's appeal be allowed. 3.3.1 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below in holding that the genuineness of gift is not es…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. United Helicharters P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…icipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459." Similarly, while dealing with a question as to whether an assessee can be penalized for failure to carry out an act prior to its incorporation the Apex Court in the case of Lite Insurance Corporation of India v. c/T [1996J 219 ITR 410 made following observations. "11. It is obvious that in the surplus or deficit in any inter- valuation period relating to the Corporation which came to be formed only on the appointed day in 1956, this amount could not be reflected since it related to a period prior to the formation of the Corporation. The law does not contemplate or require the…

M/S Ludwig Pfeiffer Gypsums Structure India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3060/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu, [A.Ys : 2008-2009]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 40

…proposition of the following decisions : 1. Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002] 253 ITR 0745 2. Escorts Ltd. v. CIT (2002] 257 ITR 468 (Del] 5 3. SC Krishnaswamy S. Pd. V. Union of India 281 ITR 305 (2006] 4. Life Insurance Corporation of India 219 ITR 410 (1996] 5. ACIT v. Jindal Irrigation Systems Ltd. (Hyd) 56 ITD 164 ACIT v. Sri. Ramachandra 128 TTJ 408 (2010] (ITAT Chennai] 6. 7. Jagdish Malpani v. ACIT 94 TTJ 321 (ITAT Indore) 7. The ld. counsel of the Revenue, replying to the above contentions, submitted that the TDS was actually deposited on 7.10.2008 and not on 3.10.2008 by cheque. He fu…