How many judgments cite Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT?

306 judgments on BharatTax cite Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (34 ITR 807), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 142(1), Section 69A, Section 69.

Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT

34 ITR 807Supreme Court of India1958#255 most cited

What is Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT authority for?

The onus lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of any unexplained cash or credit entries; if they fail to do so, the amount is treated as taxable income. The Income Tax Department is not required to locate the exact source of such funds, and this principle applies even if Section 68 is not strictly invoked.

306

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Govindarajulu Mudaliar v CIT · Section 68 · Section 69 · Section 69A · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · source and nature of credit · creditworthiness · department not required to locate source · taxable income · general principles of taxation

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 69A Section 69 Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 106 section 66 creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof paper company source of source share capital and share premium section 251(2)section 31 addition u/s 68 live link section 251(1)(a)

Judgments citing Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…roceedings in the instant case of Appellant. It is humbly submitted that ratio of the aforesaid judgment rather supports the contention of the Appellant and proves its case and not the case made out by the Ld. AO. (v) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC): The facts and circumstances of case of Appellant has no relevancy, even remotely, with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, as relied upon by ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 33 M/s Agrasen Agro Industries P Ltd. Vs DCIT the Ld. AO. In that case the Appellant did not prove his version that the gift was alleged to have been made…

M/S Rajasthan Cable Industries Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1121/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d AR the ratio of the aforesaid judgment rather supports the contention of the Assessee and proves its case and not the case made out by the Ld. AO. 20. The ld AR also distinguished the facts laid down in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), G.R. Siri Ram Vs ITA 1121, 1189 & 1052/JP/2018_ 21 M/s Rajasthan Cable Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT CIT (1975) 98 ITR 337 (P&H), CIT Vs. Kishore Lal & Santoshi Lal (1995) 216 ITR 9 (Raj). The detailed submissions filed in this regard is placed on record. 21. With regard to various documentary evidences placed on record, the ld AR has relied…

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

M/S Rajasthan Cable Industries Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1052/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Pushpa, Mathura vs. ITO-1(2)(3), Mathura

In the result,both appeals are allowed

ITA 332/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. PAN: DLDPS6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. PAN: BCOPD0484L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anurag Sinha, AR Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 21.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 22.03.2019 ORDER Per Dr.Mitha Lal Meena, A. M.: Both the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Blisswood Green Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5120/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 68

…cts are not even remotely In this case assessee stated that certain Govindrajula similar in the present case. amount, was gifted to him by his father and Mudaliar v. secondly, the profits earned in a partnership CIT [1958] concern which carried on business in 34 ITR 807 arrack, in which T was only a benamidar for (SC) him. Both the facts were found incorrect 14 2 CIT v. Durga Facts are not even remotely Prasad More similar in the present case. In this case the assessee was receiving some [1971] 82 income. He says that it is not his income but ITR 540 (SC) his wife's income. His wife is supposed to have had two l…

Nitesh Doshi, Indore vs. JCIT Range-2, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…ay not be strictly applicable since the assessee was not maintaining any books of accounts and the bank statement cannot be considered as the assessee’s books of account on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Govendrajulu Mudgment 34 ITR 807, it is the onus of the assessee to explain the cash received by him and if there is no explanation or acceptable evidence to prove the nature and source of the receipt, the amount may be added as the assessee’s income on general principles and it is not necessary to invoke section 68, nor is it necessary for the income tax authorities to point out…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Om Parkash L/H of Smt. Pushpa Vs. Income Tax Officer, Verma Plot No. 02, Ward-1(3), Jalandhar Village Waryana, Sangal Sohal Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AAHPV 0008Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 20.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-…

ITO WD 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Mineral Resources P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3709/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. B. R. Baskaran, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3709/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: ShriShaileshDoshi, AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…ormation becomes unverifiable, or there are further doubts in the pursuit of such detains then the onus shift back to the assessee. The Hon‟ble High Court while reaching to the said conclusion had relied upon the case of A.GovindarajuluMudaliarVrs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807. Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Onasis Axles Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. CIT (2014) 44 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi), wherein it was held that „Where assessee received certain amount as share application money, in view of fact that amounts used to subscribe to shares were deposited in bank accounts of parties on same…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ojects Pvt. Ltd. particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a…

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3337/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 68

…he following Judicial pronouncements of the various Hon’ble High Courts: " MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd. order dated 28.11.2013 (Del.) " CIT Vs NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. order dated 22.11.2013 M. L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd. " A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) " CIT Vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) " CIT Vs Steller Investment Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (FB) (Del.) " CIT Vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. " Nipun Builders and Developers (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del.) " M/s Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. order dated 25.08.2014 (Del.) " CIT…

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3336/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 68

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3335/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 68

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…ayer. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature [Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT[1958]34 ITR 807 (SC)]. 6.3.21 In the case of Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 /2S Taxman 80F (SC), the assessee gave the names and addresses of the creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the creditors were income-tax assessees. The revenue apart from issuing notices under section 131 did not pursue the matter further. It did not examine…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilip Chimanlal Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7079/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Virendar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya

Section 132

…ted 30.06.2016); 2) Andaman Timber Industries (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 vide order dated 02.09.2015); 3) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC); 4) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); 5) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); 6) Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj); 7) CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevikhadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom); 8) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd. [2012] 51 SOT 234; 9) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H); 10) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Balkiwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj); 11) CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del); 12) CIT…

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

…ed and emphasized time and again by the Apex Court, to some decisions by which, as also by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, settling 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. Lachhmanda…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जे, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Idhasoft Ltd. DCIT-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AABCI6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT-15(2)(1), M/s Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3rd Floor 3, Narayan Building,…

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

…ce of income, and it is therefore for him to show that the same is not in the nature of income, rebutting the presumption with credible explanation/ material, proving the genuineness 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 Vik…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ticular source. Where the assessee failed to prove 9 Shreedham Builders satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More 24 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid d…