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

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

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

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…itor) and the genuineness (of the credit). The law in the matter is well-settled per a series of decisions by the Apex Court, as well as by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court – to one of which the AO has referred, viz. 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) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) 8 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [200…

Vidya Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Inl. Taxation Ward 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2016/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2016/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mrs.Vijaya Prabha, JCITFor Respondent: 15.05.2018

Section 10(38)Section 68

…e receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income see A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 34 ITR 807 SC. On the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the assessee has not established her case . Though it did cross in our minds, that the assessee could be granted another opportunity to produce evidences in the form of producing the books involved in the transactions, their contemporary records, share transfer forms, the records of the…

Gopal Swaroop Kishanchand Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6611/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…in the books maintained by the 5 ITA 6611/Mum/2017 assessee. The appellant in this case has not been able to offers any proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited. 8.4 In the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliarv. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the burden to prove the genuineness of cash credit lies on the taxpayer. 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". 8.5 The Hon'…

Pratik Syntex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6690/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6690/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Pratik Syntex Private Ito 13(1)(4), Mumbai Ltd.,A-51, Rustomji Adarsh Heritage, Adarsh Vihar V. Complex, Opp. Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaecp3487H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143(3)

…adverse report, the onus shifts back to the assessee to produce the shareholders before the AO and if the assessee falters the additions can be made u/s 68 of the Act.. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court dealt with this issue in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC),as under: “Now the contention of the appellant is that assuming that he had failed to establish the case put forward "by him, it does not follow as a matter of law that the amounts in question were income received or accrued during the previous year, that it was the duty of the Department to adduce evidence to show from what source the income…

Gn Resound India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gn Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12Th Floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccg3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…extile v. CIT 121 ITR 890. In the instant case the appellant has failed to adduce the evidence before the AO to establish the prima facie of the aforesaid transaction as evident from the finding at para 8 hereinbefore. It has been held in Govindarajulu v. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC); Lakhmichand v. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC); Kalekhan v. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) that where an assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an income nature and it is not necessary for him to…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…vii. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del) xviii. CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Anr. 299 ITR 263 (Del) xix. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) xx. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shaha vs. CIT 213 ITR 803 (Bom) a. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) xxi. VIP (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 265 ITR 202 (MP) xxii. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) xxiii. CIT vs. Active Traders (P) Ltd. 214 ITR 583 (Cal) xxiv. CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. 263 ITR 623 (Cal) xxv. CIT vs. Bhagwati Jewels Ltd. 201 ITR 461 (Del) xxvi. CIT vs. Prateek Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. 215 ITR 272 (Del) xxvii. S…

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…s 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 41 Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 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 t…

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. R.S. Coalfield Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1924/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1924/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O. Ward-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S R.S. Coalfield Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadcp 4759 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) For The Revenue : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2017 Order J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, AR

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ad come or emanated from the assessee's coffers. Section 68 of the Act casts no such burden upon the Assessing Officer. This aspect has been considered more than 50 years back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807. To place such a burden on him, an impossible one at that, would be quite contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above. 10.3 Therefore, even though corporate entity has been created, this office, after considering all the facts as above, has come to the conclusion that what is apparent is not real and the alleged company does…

ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Malinath Tradecon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1876/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1876/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O. Ward-9(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Malinath Tradecon Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 1557 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : None

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: None

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Champalal D. Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2556/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…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 receipt's are of an assessable nature [A. Govindarajulu Mudallar v. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC)] 7.3.10 In the case of Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/[2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) it was held that if the identity of the creditors is proved and the amounts are received by account-payee cheques, the initial burden of proving credit is discharged and the source of credits need not be proved. 7.3.11 In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladev…

Shailesh Kantilal Shah, Goregaon vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6044/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Shailesh Kantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer- 503, B, Dharam Palace, 16(2)(2), बनाम/ Huges Road, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafps5517F

Section 143(3)

…ank, therefore, in view of this factual matrix, we are of the view that the onus is upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs P. Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) and A. Govind Raju Mudaliar vs CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC), Cit vs Kundan Investment Ltd. 263 ITR 626 (Cal.), CIT vs N. R. Portfolia (P.) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 408 (Del.) supports our view, consequently, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). This ground of the assessee, is therefore, dismissed. 3. The next ground pertains to the amount of `16,96,362/-, claim to be…

Satya Narayan Pradhan, Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 113/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Padhy, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…applicable since the assessee was not maintaining any books of account and the bank statement could not be considered as the assessee's books of account, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807, it is the onus on 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…

Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Burdwan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1920/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1920/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1(2), Burdwan C/O Benu Radio Product, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Baidyapur More, Opp.Uti Bank Compound, Burdwan Po-Kalna, Dist-Burdwan- 713101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhpc 8020 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan, In Appeal No.365/Cit(A)/Asl/Wd-1(2)/Bwn/2010-11, Dated 26.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.10.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.06.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,04,640/- . Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(2) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Undisclosed Income U/S.69 At Rs.11,04,790/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Had Come To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had 2 Sri Santanu Chatterjee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,04,790/- In Axis Bank Kalana Bearing Account

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

…ictly applicable since the assessee was not maintaining any books of account 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. Govindaraiulu Mudaliar v. CIT 1958 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…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…ssessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such 21 Anil Chhaganlal Jain Anil Chhaganlal Jain(HUF) 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 ca…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Ram Textiles, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3478/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

Section 133(6)Section 68

…me 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 (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 ca…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…or income or consideration. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- was made treating the same as unexplained income within the provision of Section 68 of the Act. A reference was made to the following case laws: " A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) " CIT Vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) " CIT Vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) " Yadu Hari Dalmia Vs CIT (1980) 126 ITR 48 (Del) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submission which has been incorporated in para 4 of the impugned order at page nos.…

Om Machineries Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax V

ITA/176/2016HC Delhi08 Nov 2016

Section 132Section 68

…hat the A.O. had failed to point out source from which money was received by the assessee company before making addition u/s 68. This observation goes against the ratio laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (S.C.), this argument advanced by the assessee was rejected by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court Venkatarama Aiyar J., speaking for the court, observed as under (at page 810): “Now, the contention of the appellant is that assuming that he had failed to establish the case put forward by him, it does not follow as a matter of law that the amounts i…

Late Shri Pravin V. Kacharia Through Legal Heir Hiren P. Kacharia, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1343/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri B.N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar

…4)(48 Taxmann.com 191). 3 Late Shri Pravin V. Kacharia 5. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of cash deposits by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A Govindrajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807) and annual value of deemed to be let out properties was determined by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Radhadevi Dalmia Vs. CIT (1980)(125 ITR 134). 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. With regard to the first issue, there should not be any dispute that the principles laid down by Hon’ble…