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 Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms our aforesaid observations

ITA 30/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. B-495, Cross Street-25, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai-490020 (C.G.) Pan :Aaeck3160C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…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…

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Mukka Proteins Ltd., The Principal Mukka Corporate House, Commissioner of No. 18-2-16/4, 1st Cross, Income-tax N.G. Road, Attavar, [Central], Mangaluru – 575 001. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, CIT Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 23-08-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee…

M/S Agya Ram Manohar Lal, Khanna vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 454/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT -DR

Section 115BSection 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 69Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "व"म "संह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 454/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s Agya Ram Manohar Lal The Pr. CIT बनाम Karnail Singh Road, Khanna-141401 (Central), Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACFA4974B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT -DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date…

Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Mumbai vs. ITO (WD)- 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3113/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(2), Room No. 8/9/10, 3Rd Floor, Faiz- 4Th Floor, Earnest House, E-Akhtar, 27, Memonwada Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Afcpm 8595 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(2), Room No. 8/9/10, 3rd floor, Faiz- 4th floor, Earnest House, E-Akhtar, 27, Memonwada Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003. PAN No. AFCPM 8595 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR Date of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date of pronouncement : 19/09/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the ass…

Rajeshbhai Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Surt

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…sion of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para no.11 and page 7 of the order of ld.AO has held as under: ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani ". The decisions of this court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Guj.) Krishna Textiles [2009] 310 ITR 227 (Guj.) are neither relevant nor germane to the issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005]…

Rajeshbhai Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Surt

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 52/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…sion of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para no.11 and page 7 of the order of ld.AO has held as under: ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani ". The decisions of this court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Guj.) Krishna Textiles [2009] 310 ITR 227 (Guj.) are neither relevant nor germane to the issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005]…

Rajeshbhai Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Surt

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 51/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…sion of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para no.11 and page 7 of the order of ld.AO has held as under: ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani ". The decisions of this court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Guj.) Krishna Textiles [2009] 310 ITR 227 (Guj.) are neither relevant nor germane to the issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005]…

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Venkatesh Securities Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri A K TribrewalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68Section 71

…in the judicial pronouncements of the Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the cases of Dulari Digital Photo Services Private Limited vs. CIT (2013) 94 DTR 259, as also of the Gujarat High Court, in the cases of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290. It has been held in both of these cases that where income is not relatable to any known or any bona fide source, such income cannot be classified under any other heads of income specified in Section 14 and therefore the benefit of set off of losses under any other heads of income against the income chargeable to tax by virtue of deeming provisio…

Asha Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 157/NAG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)– 3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Income Determined By The Assessing Officer At Rs.15,02,106/- Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651;…

Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651;…

Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 155/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); 13 Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT, CentralCircle 2(1), Nagpur g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahab…

Shri Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistanat Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 154/NAG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8/6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 4Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651;…

Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 153/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The ACIT Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) PAN No.:BIAPT 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orde…

Shri Santosh Chandumal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 162/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit A-56, Near Jain Bhavan, Bus Stand, Central Circle 2(1) Pandhurna,Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Adapt 8743 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Brokerage Income At Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; T…

Harsha Santosh Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 161/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Pandhurna, Nagpur Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Thoctober 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…(SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); 13 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani vs ACIT, CC-2(1), Nagpur c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651;…

Harsha Santosh Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 160/NAG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Nagpur Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651;…

Shri Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 159/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 41, Prop. Shankar Kirana, Tar Bazar, Central Circle 2(1) Main Road,Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Aiqpt 1252 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 7Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651;…

Asha Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is party allowed

ITA 158/NAG/2021[2019-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2021

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…-SC-IT; b. Krish Kumar Vs ITO, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC)/[2019] 265 Taxman 227 (SC); c. ArvindJarandhanPandeyVs ITO, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 (Bombay); d. Fakir Mohmed Haji HasanVs CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujrat)/[2001 247 ITR 290 (Gujrat)/2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujrat); e. CIT VsArunMalhotra [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651;…

Sandip B. Padsala, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 695/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Adjudication. 3. The Ld. Pr Cit Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessing Officer Erred In Granting Deduction Of Interest Of Rs. 11,70,726/- Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Not Claimed Deduction Of The Same While Preparing Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Permission To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or During The Course Of Rearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R

Section 14Section 263Section 30Section 37Section 68

….A No. 695/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 4 Sandip B. Padsala vs. Pr. CIT loss can be set-off against such unexplained cash credit which is considered as income of the assessee. 5.1 The Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 held that when (unexplained) income cannot be classified under any one of the heads of income under Section 14, it follows that the question of giving any deductions under the provisions which correspond to such heads of income will not arise. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court made the following observations regarding claim of deduction against unex…

Rajender Kumar Anand, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4305/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Kajal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 69

…off of determined business lossesfrom the deemed income u/s. 68 of the Act, relied upon the judgment in Kim Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra) by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court, in which the judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Fakir Mohamed Haji Hasan vs. CIT, 247 ITR 290 (2001) was followed, wherein there was no determined loss and the main issue before the courts in both the aforementioned cases was whether a deemed income be taxed outside the ambit of heads of income as classified under section 14 of the Act. The Assesseefurther claimed that Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Print…

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 Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai(Cg)

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

M/S Agya Ram Manohar Lal, Khanna vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Mumbai vs. ITO (WD)- 17(1)(2), Mumbai

Rajeshbhai Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Surt

Rajeshbhai Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Surt

Rajeshbhai Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Surt

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Venkatesh Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Asha Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Shri Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistanat Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Shri Santosh Chandumal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Harsha Santosh Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Harsha Santosh Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Shri Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Asha Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Sandip B. Padsala, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

Rajender Kumar Anand, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Gurgaon