Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar v. CIT

193 ITR 186High Court1992#9493 most cited

What is Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar v. CIT authority for?

Depreciation is allowable on a vehicle even if it was plied without a proper permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. The taxing authorities are justified in treating an investment as unexplained under section 69 if the assessee fails to prove its source.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar v. CIT · 193 ITR 186 · depreciation allowance · motor vehicle permit · Section 69 · unexplained investment · source of investment

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ABSection 44ADSection 5ASection 127 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 143(2)prescribedsection 143(3)total incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar v. CIT

Smt Bertha D'Costa, Cavelossim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Margao

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

ITA 159/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 44ASection 5A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.158 &159/PAN/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs ITO-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. complex, (PAN:AEWPD6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, ITO-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . complex, (PAN:AEWPD6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee by Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.AR Revenue by Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 09.09.…

Shri Julio D'Costa, Cavelosim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Margao

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

ITA 158/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 44ASection 5A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.158 &159/PAN/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs ITO-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. complex, (PAN:AEWPD6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, ITO-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . complex, (PAN:AEWPD6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee by Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.AR Revenue by Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 09.09.…

Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 297/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [PAN: AOBPS4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant b…

M/S Deepa Developers, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 45/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT-DR(ITAT)(Bengaluru)
Section 201(1)Section 234Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.44 and 45/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2013-14 and 2014-15 M/s. Deepa Developers, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, D. No.4-6-577/31, Mahendra Circle – 1(1), Arcade, Karangalpady, Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. PAN : AAEFD 0601 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT-DR(ITAT)(Bengaluru) Date of hearing : 10.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2019 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice Pr…

M/S Deepa Developers, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 44/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT-DR(ITAT)(Bengaluru)
Section 201(1)Section 234Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.44 and 45/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2013-14 and 2014-15 M/s. Deepa Developers, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, D. No.4-6-577/31, Mahendra Circle – 1(1), Arcade, Karangalpady, Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. PAN : AAEFD 0601 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT-DR(ITAT)(Bengaluru) Date of hearing : 10.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2019 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice Pr…

M/S Deepa Developers, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2503/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Sri Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…tted that it has no enduring benefit and the value of the vehicle is not appreciated by paying the R.T.O. Tax. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Janardan Prasad Ashok Prasad vs. CIT as reported in 193 ITR 186. It was submitted that in this case, it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that the depreciation was allowable even though the vehicle was plied without getting the permit as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. One more submission is made that these expenses are allowable as per the provisions of Section 43B. We find that this is not an…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…payment of Rs. 67,790. The mere fact that the correct calculation of interest comes to Rs. 44,616 as stipulated in the pronote would not render that payment of interest of Rs. 67,790 false. 12. 5 In the case of Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 186 (All) , the Allahabad High Court held that where the assessee had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the taxing authorities, the authorities would be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj)…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…payment of Rs. 67,790. The mere fact that the correct calculation of interest comes to Rs. 44,616 as stipulated in the pronote would not render that payment of interest of Rs. 67,790 false. 12. 5 In the case of Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 186 (All) , the Allahabad High Court held that where the assessee had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the taxing authorities, the authorities would be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj)…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…payment of Rs. 67,790. The mere fact that the correct calculation of interest comes to Rs. 44,616 as stipulated in the pronote would not render that payment of interest of Rs. 67,790 false. 12. 5 In the case of Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 186 (All) , the Allahabad High Court held that where the assessee had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the taxing authorities, the authorities would be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj)…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…payment of Rs. 67,790. The mere fact that the correct calculation of interest comes to Rs. 44,616 as stipulated in the pronote would not render that payment of interest of Rs. 67,790 false. 12. 5 In the case of Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 186 (All) , the Allahabad High Court held that where the assessee had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the taxing authorities, the authorities would be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj)…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…payment of Rs. 67,790. The mere fact that the correct calculation of interest comes to Rs. 44,616 as stipulated in the pronote would not render that payment of interest of Rs. 67,790 false. 12. 5 In the case of Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 186 (All) , the Allahabad High Court held that where the assessee had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the taxing authorities, the authorities would be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj)…

Janardan Prasad Ashok Kumar v. CIT (193 ITR 186) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax