Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT

34 ITR 669High Court1958#12651 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT

Shri Shri Pravin Singh S/O Ram Bharose Singh, Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 4/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.04/Rpr/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Pravin Singh, The Deputy S/O.Ram Bharose Singh, Vs Commissioner Of Income Hotel Madhuram Matri Nagar, Tax Bhilai-1(1), Risali Bhilai (C.G.) Bhilai(C.G.) Pan: Ajbps 7385 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri R.B.Doshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Piyush Tripathi – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/04/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 07.10.2016 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Partially Allowing The Appeal By Partially Considering The Facts Of The Case. Shri Pravin Singh [A]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH :: RAIPUR V I R T U A L H E A R I N G BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.04/RPR/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Pravin Singh, The Deputy S/o.Ram Bharose Singh, Vs Commissioner of Income Hotel Madhuram Matri Nagar, Tax Bhilai-1(1), Risali Bhilai (C.G.) Bhilai(C.G.) PAN: AJBPS 7385 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri R.B.Doshi – AR Revenue by Shri Piyush Tripathi – DR Date of hearing 20/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 20/…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1189/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.1189/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), [Now Readystream Infotech (P) Ltd.] New Delhi T-336/B, Gali No.8, Near Ojha Dharamshala, Gautampuri, Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm6581C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 68

…cting the explanation and holding that the income if from an undisclosed source. The assessing officer in not required to specify or proof what that source is, which from the nature of the case must be know only to the assessee (Seth Kalekhan Md. Hanif (1958) 34 ITR 669, 673, 674 (M.P.) affirmed, (1963) 50 ITR 1, 4 (SC)). 21 M/s Magical Infotech (P.) Ltd. The Calcutta High Court in Korlay Trading company Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 82, 824 (Cat.) held that: “mere filing of the Income Tax file numbers of the creditors is not enough to prove the genuineness of the cash credit. There creditor should be identified. Then th…

Shri Shri Niteshkumar Goyal, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 36/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Nitesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Com Con India Net Work Solution Shop No.327 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aigpg6386B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pandse, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pandse, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 68

…unt payee cheques through banking channels it was held by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court “ "It is clear on the terms of section 68 that the burden is on the assessee to offer a satisfactory explanation about the nature and source lekhan Md. Hanif v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 669, 673, 674 (MP) affirmed (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v. Krishna Mining Co., (1972) 83 ITR 860 (AP). 9 Shri Niteshkumar Goyal Vs. ITO Observing the of the amount found credited in the books of the assessee. It is also- clear that the mere furnishing of particulars is not enough. The mere fact that the payment was by way of account payee cheque is also…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Tarun Devcon Private Limited, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

ITA 18/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…l therefore have to be with reference to the entire sum found credited. This represents trite law, and for which, beginning with Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), affirming the decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (reported at [1958] 34 ITR 669 (MP)), the case law by the Apex Court is legion. A perusal of the material on record shows that the entire sum credited stands explained with reference the creditor’s existing capital and/or current income. No verification of the same was however done by the AO. In fact, as explained by Sh. Bardia during hearing, the production of the creditors by…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

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

…prove the sources and the nature' of the receipts appearing in its books of account. The department has to prove neither the source nor the nature of the receipts, as has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Kalekhan Mahomed Hanif v. ClT [1958] 34 ITR 669 which decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalekhan Mohammad Hanifv. CIT [1963] 50 ITR l. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194, by Calcutta High Court in Shankar Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689, C. Kant & Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 I…

Shri Om Parkash Legal Heiar Smt Pushpa Verma, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

…decisions going back to as far back as late 1950s or early 1960s, i.e., even before the enactment of the Act [refer: Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (affirming the landmark decision [1958] 34 ITR 669 (MP))], reference, particularly in the context of the present case, which is qua section 41(1), be made to the decision in CIT v. S. Kamaraja Pandian [1984] 150 ITR 703 (Mad), clarifying that the assessee shall, inspite of entries to that effect in his accounts, have to establish the identity of the creditor; his capacity to advance; as well as th…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…ng the law in the matter, we may refer to for the sake of completeness of discussion: Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) [affirming 34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) CIT v. Y.M. Singla [2014] 366 ITR 242 (P&H) N…

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ess of the said credit (refer, inter alia, Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) (affirming the landmark decision reported at [1958] 34 ITR 669 (MP)); CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC)). As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), these provisions only seek to provide statutory 8 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined in the Evidence Act. Though the matter is principally factual, so…