What is Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT authority for?

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

How many judgments cite Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT?

581 judgments on BharatTax cite Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 147, Section 142(1).

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1)

M/S. Brightstar Vincom Pvt.Ltd., 700007 vs. I.T.A, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Brightstar Vincom Pvt. Ltd…..…......................…...……………....Appellant 18/1, 4Th Floor, Room No.48, M.D. Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aadcb2082R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Kolkata........…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 21, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 234Section 250Section 68

…in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” (supra) is concerned, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and cal…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…ess of the transactions. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1. Kalekhan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 2. GovindarajuluModaliar Vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Deviprasad Viswanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) In all the above mentioned cases, it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee lies on the assessee himself. Further, if there is any entry in the books of account…

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 580/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Navin Constructions & Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Vs Credit Pvt. Ltd. 12, Government Place East, Kolkata Dalhousie Kolkata - 700069 [PAN: AAACN9084E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Navin Constructions & Deputy Commissioner of Income Credit Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Vs 12…

Muhammed Kutty Kayingil, Malappuaram vs. The ITO, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmohammed Kutty Kayingil Income Tax Officer Mousufa Nivas (International Taxation) Edappal P.O. Vs. Kozhikode Malappuram 679576 [Pan:Cbxpm7315J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Mohammed Kutty Kayingil Income Tax Officer Mousufa Nivas (International Taxation) Edappal P.O. vs. Kozhikode Malappuram 679576 [PAN:CBXPM7315J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the dismissal of his appeal contesting his assessment under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act,…

Nandha Kishore, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4), Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1022/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

…filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) also issued various notices but the assessee did not comply. Accordingly, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC), the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the notices were sent to the email-id of the assessee’s CA and therefore the assessee was not aware of the same to reply to the notices. The CA of the assessee also coul…

DCIT, CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Hetal N. Shah (Leagal Heir of the Assessee Shri Nitin Rajmal Shah), Mumbai

In the result, we admit the appeal of the AO as it has been replaced by bringing the legal heir of deceased assessee on record but dismissed the appeal on the merits of the addition

ITA 1080/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Hetal Nitin Shah Dcit Legal Heir Of Nitin Rajmal Central Circle 5(1) Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Shah Air India Building, 301, Chandramani, Vs. Nariman Point, Hanuman Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadps5476M Assessee By : Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…d. MANU/WB/0087/1993 : (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal): • Proof of Identity of the creditors; • Capacity of creditors to advance money; and • Genuineness of transaction This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT MANU/SC/0292/1963 : (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT MANU/SC/0192/1977 : (1977) 107 ITR (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an Assessee, is on the Assessee. Once the Assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an…

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…nts." In the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the onus of proving the source of some of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him." In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "where the nature & source of an receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any other particular source." It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

…preme Court in the case of NRA Steelin the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT”[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and“Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT” [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct…

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

…preme Court in the case of NRA Steelin the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT”[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and“Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT” [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct…

Shri Balkrishna Gajanan Thopte, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…robabilities. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decision of the Hon'ble Courts viz, a) A Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC) b) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112(SC) c) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) e) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674(SC) f) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) It needs to be appreciated that what is essentially under cloud, and being seriously doubted as to the genuineness, is the gain stated to arise on the transaction. It is the gain which is abnor…

M/S Arham Packaging Goods Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” (supra) is concerned, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and cal…

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kaka Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Officer Kaka Services (P) Ltd., Ward-14(1) A-19/59, Gali No.3 New Delhi Vs. Guru Nanak Pura Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110 092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Pankaj Saraogi, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/12/2023 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for…

The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Sahana Jewellery Exports Privae Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 999/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.999/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Sahana Jewellery- Corporate Ward-2, Exports Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore. 600, Raja Street, Coimbatore-641 001. [Pan:Aaecs 7045 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 133(6)

…Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT(Supra) and CIT v. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.Sahana Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. :: 9 :: Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif reported in 50 ITR 1 (SC) and argued that those case laws are rendered in the context of the theory of human probability and not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (supra), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when…