DSP Chennai v. K Insbasagaran

1 SCC 420Reported decision2006#21748 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 127 of the Income Tax Act Section 129 of the Income Tax Act Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act Section 144 of the Income Tax Act Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act Section 269T of the Income Tax Act Section 68 of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing DSP Chennai v. K Insbasagaran

Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 297/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 5

…cash. The assessee filed return of income by admitting the said transactions from assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13. The ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DSP, Chennai v. K. Inbasagaran, reported as (2006) 1 SCC 420 14 I.T.A. No.297/Chny/19 and argued that the money found in joint possession cannot be saddled in the hands of one of the joint holders in the absence of any evidence. He argued vehemently that the transaction of monies by assessee’s mother cannot be made in the hands of the assessee as he is a joint holder. 20. The ld. DR relied on the order of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Bheema Wines

ITTA/200/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jyoti Limboo

ITA/200/2010HC Delhi16 Feb 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 109Section 13Section 13(2)Section 161Section 482

…all the income and the assessment stands completed. These tax returns filed much prior to the registration of the case, and money belonging to other accused cannot be fastened on the accused. Reliance is placed upon DSP Chennai vs K Insbasagaran (2006) 1 SCC 420 and State of Andhra Pradesh vs J. Satyanarayan JT 2000 (10) SC 430. Further reliance is placed upon Gapadibai vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 2 SCC 327 to assert that in order to prove benami transactions evidence must be led to show that (i) accused paid consideration; (ii) he had custody of the sale deed; (iii) he was in possession of the…