What is Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT authority for?

Income deemed under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, or 69C of the Income-tax Act is a distinct category, separate from regular heads of income under Section 14, and losses from other heads, including business losses, cannot be set off against such deemed income.

How many judgments cite Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT?

136 judgments on BharatTax cite Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT (247 ITR 290), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 145(3), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 144.

Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT (247 ITR 290)

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 87/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e u/s 69C by holding that the deemed income cannot be classified under any one of heads of income u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT, 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat) and on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, 296 ITR 94 (P&H). 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 86/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e u/s 69C by holding that the deemed income cannot be classified under any one of heads of income u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT, 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat) and on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, 296 ITR 94 (P&H). 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 85/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e u/s 69C by holding that the deemed income cannot be classified under any one of heads of income u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT, 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat) and on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, 296 ITR 94 (P&H). 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court…

M/S Vatsalya Builders, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Centarl Circle 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 210/NAG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…e u/s 69C by holding that the deemed income cannot be classified under any one of heads of income u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT, 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat) and on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, 296 ITR 94 (P&H). 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court…

M/S Shankar Rice & General Mills, Moga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…evidence to establish the nexus between the surrendered income and business and no source for the surrendered income could not related to. The judgments cited supra i.e.: 10 Shankar Rice & Gen. Mills v. Dy. CIT (1) Fakir Mohammed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT ([2001] 247 ITR 290 (Guj.) (2) PCIT vs. M/s. Khushi Ram & Sons Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana in ITA No. 126 of 2015 dated 21.07.2016 (3) SVSOil Mills vs. ACIT, Chennai, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in ITA No. 765 2018 dated 26.03.2019. (4) Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 dated 27.04.2011, (5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court i…

The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot vs. Shri Samirbhai Maganbhai Kalariya and Others, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 185/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 69C

…69C of the Act. Accordingly, the same is liable to tax at the higher rate specified u/s 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer in holding so has also made a reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Hazi Hasan reported in 247 ITR 290 and Hon’ble Panjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kin Farm Pvt. Ltd. reported in 216 taxmann.com 153. Thus, the Assessing Officer calculated the income tax on the income admitted by the assessee under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the CIT(A)…

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

…69B of the Act is deemed income against which no set off of losses, expenditure, deduction etc are allowable. I find that the stand taken by the Ld AO was as per the decision of Hon'ble, Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat) has held that scheme of sections 69, 69A and 69C shows that where nature and source of investments or source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by assessee are not explained satisfactorily and same are not recorded in books of account or expenditure incurred is unexplained, then same may be deemed to be income of such assesse…

Suresh Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 167/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner Of 114/10 (Ligh), Gandhi Road, V. Income Tax, West Tambaram, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 045. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagps-0396-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 69B

…s “whether the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has erred in directing the AO to assess the unexplained investment surrendered by the assessee under the head “income from Business” ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. Hazi Hasan 247 ITR 290 that unaccounted income ought to be categorized under the residuary head of ‘Income from other sources’. In respect to the said issue, the findings of the Coordinate Bench are as follows: “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Undisputed facts emerged from the record that at the time of survey excess st…

Shri Gopal Soni, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Gopal Soni Prop Vs. The Acit, Circle – 1 Durga Silver Home Bikaner. Katla Chowk Nokha Rajasthan. Bikaner-334803, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aemps5097M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 69

…whether the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has erred in directing the A.O. to assessee the unexplained investment surrendered by the assessee under the head income from Business" ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. Hazi Hasan 247 ITR 290 that unaccounted income ought to be categorized under the residuary head of Income from other sources'. In respect to the said issue, the findings of the Coordinate Bench are as follows: "We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Undisputed facts emerged from the record that at the time of survey excess st…

The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Gandhidham - Kutch vs. M/S. Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers, Gandhidham - Kutch

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

ITA 239/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 69ASection 69C

…enditure/deemed income, against which no set off of any expenditure was to be allowed to the assessee. We have noted that the AO has relied heavily on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT, (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) in support. 4 7. The ld.counsel for the assessee, on the otherhand, has pointed to us that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly taken note of the fact that thealleged unexplained investment of the assessee pertained to the excess stock of assets in which the assessee dealt in the course of its business i.e. of bullion and jewellery, ornaments and the…

M/S Supremo India Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait Central 3, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

…such excess stock by posting necessary entries in the stock register and further despite the undisputed reporting of the sales effected in relation thereto in its entirety by the Appellant?" 4.2.6 Hon'ble Gujarat High court in Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan Vs CIT 247 ITR 290 (Guj) have held that expression "save as otherwise provided by this Act" used in section 14, clearly leaves the scope for deemed income of nature covered under scheme of section 69,69A,69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital g…

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 165/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 82/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit (Central)-1 M/S. Bansal Extraction & बनाम/ Bhopal Exports (P) Ltd., Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69B

…assessee’s claim and not given any direction to AO. Further, on perusal of order of first-appeal involved in ITA No. 165/Ind/2022, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has rejected assessee’s claim by relying upon the decision in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat HC). Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not understood the claim of assessee and mis-placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court. According to Ld. AR, in the case before Hon’ble Gujrat High Court, the department made addition of deemed-income u/s 69A/69B/69C on account of unexplained investment, etc. and the assessee P…

Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Johari (Through L/H Smt. Hema Johari, Sh. Vaibhav Johari & Sh. Varun Johari), 63, Om Nivas, Masjid Wali Gali, 22 Godam, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 241/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Late Shri Vijay Kumar Johari The ACIT, Vs. Through L/H Smt. Hema Johari, Circle – 2, Shri Vaibhav Johari & Shri Varun Jaipur. Johari, 63, Om Nivas, Masjid Wali Gali, 22 Godam, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAZPJ 9976 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A…

M/S Overseas Leathers, Ranipet vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 962/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Overseas Leathers, Deputy Commissioner Of No. 131, Sidco Industrial V. Income-Tax, Estates, Central Circle -3(3), Sipcot, Ranipet, Ranipet New No. 46, Old No. 108, District – 632 403 Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaafo-0375-L] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 115BSection 69B

…s “whether the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has erred in directing the AO to assess the unexplained investment surrendered by the assessee under the head “income from Business” ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. Hazi Hasan 247 ITR 290 that unaccounted income ought to be categorized under the residuary head of ‘Income from other sources’. In respect to the said issue, the findings of the Coordinate Bench are as follows: “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Undisputed facts emerged from the record that at the time of survey excess st…

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…e the Act does not provide any guidance in the matter." • CIT v/s. DP. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. - 273 ITR 1 (SC) It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court that "there cannot be any headless income. So the ratio of decision of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan - 247 ITR 290 is not applicable."  CIT v. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. - 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj.)  J.K. Chokshi vs. ACIT- Tax Appeal 149 of 2003 (Guj.) It has been held by Honourable High Court that "once it was established that the assessee had no other source of income at the relevant time or in the past, it could be safely concluded that the as…

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

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

ITA 571/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…ot reflected in books of account and no source from where it was derived was declared by assessee, it was assessable as deemed income of assessee under section 69A and not business income 3. Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs CIT 120021 120 Taxman 11 (Gujarat)/120011 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat)/120011 165 CTR 111 (Gujarat) where Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that scheme of sections 69, 69A and 69C shows that where nature and source of investments or source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by assessee are not explained satisfactorily and same are not recorded in books of account or expenditure incurred is unexpla…

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

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

ITA 570/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…ot reflected in books of account and no source from where it was derived was declared by assessee, it was assessable as deemed income of assessee under section 69A and not business income 3. Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs CIT 120021 120 Taxman 11 (Gujarat)/120011 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat)/120011 165 CTR 111 (Gujarat) where Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that scheme of sections 69, 69A and 69C shows that where nature and source of investments or source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by assessee are not explained satisfactorily and same are not recorded in books of account or expenditure incurred is unexpla…

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

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

ITA 569/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…ot reflected in books of account and no source from where it was derived was declared by assessee, it was assessable as deemed income of assessee under section 69A and not business income 3. Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs CIT 120021 120 Taxman 11 (Gujarat)/120011 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat)/120011 165 CTR 111 (Gujarat) where Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that scheme of sections 69, 69A and 69C shows that where nature and source of investments or source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by assessee are not explained satisfactorily and same are not recorded in books of account or expenditure incurred is unexpla…

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 461, 462 & 463/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Karburi Properties Room No. 1928, 19Th Ltd., Floor, Air India Bldg 324, Master Mind – Iv Nariman Point, Royal Palms, Aarey Milk Mumbai – 400 021. Colony, Goregoan East, Mumbai - 400065

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh. DR &

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…come is unknown corresponding deductions which are applicable to the incomes under any of these various heads, should not be available to the assessee. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Hazi Hasan(247 ITR 290). The assessee only knows the source of the undisclosed income or investments and there is little that the Assessing Officer can do to know the exact source of such undisclosed income or how such related investments were made. The source of the share application money in the Jogia Group including the assessee for the relevant A.Y. as cash receipt…

Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar, Trichur vs. The ACIT, Trichur

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 47/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri K.R. Sureshkumar Acit, Circle - 2(1) Kallada House Thrissur Vs. Thanissery Post Irinjalakuda, Thrissur Pan –Ajcps6553P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 68

…old the impugned Section 68 addition of Rs.1,62,33,155/- in principle. 4. Next comes the latter issue of set-off of the impugned unexplained cash credits from the alleged brought forward losses of earlier years. Learned DR referred Fakir Mohammed Haji Hassan 247 ITR 290 (Guj) that such an income under the had “unexplained” addition does not deserve to be set-off against brought forward losses. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant latter argument in the light of the very hon'ble high court’s 3 Shri K.R. Sureshkumar subsequent decision CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing and Printing Mills (2013) 219 Taxman 279 (Guj) holding…

Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT

What is Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

M/S Vatsalya Builders, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Centarl Circle 1(2), Nagpur

M/S Shankar Rice & General Mills, Moga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Moga

The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot vs. Shri Samirbhai Maganbhai Kalariya and Others, Rajkot

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

Suresh Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

Shri Gopal Soni, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Gandhidham - Kutch vs. M/S. Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers, Gandhidham - Kutch

M/S Supremo India Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait Central 3, Indore

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Johari (Through L/H Smt. Hema Johari, Sh. Vaibhav Johari & Sh. Varun Johari), 63, Om Nivas, Masjid Wali Gali, 22 Godam, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

M/S Overseas Leathers, Ranipet vs. DCIT, Chennai

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai

Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar, Trichur vs. The ACIT, Trichur