Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v. CIT

96 ITR 148High Court1974#5319 most cited

What is Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is entitled to an opportunity to explain undisclosed investments or income before it is included in their total income, as per principles of natural justice and specific provisions like Section 69.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malik Packaging v. CIT · TCN Menon v. ITO · 96 ITR 148 · section 69 · section 69A · section 115BBE · natural justice · audi alteram partem · opportunity to explain · undisclosed investment · total income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 68Section 234BSection 145(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbdsection 23(3)section 115besection 66section 69dsection 59section 150onus of proofsection 80cfull and true disclosureaudi alteram partemsection 69b

Judgments citing Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v. CIT

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 484 & 485/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat The DCIT Vs. M/s. V.S. Stone, E-172/A, Uttam Tower Circle – Sikar Ramesh Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AQVPS 7734 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kuma…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

…f Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Koyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker.). e) Apart from the confirmation of the party the assessee has submitted following documents in support of genuineness of loan taken from this party: - i) Confirmation of the party. 11 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur ii) Copy of a/c of assessee in the books of accounts of above named firm. iii) Copy o…