Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

50 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1963#103 most cited

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.

581

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT · Kale Khan 50 ITR 1 · onus of proof assessee · unexplained cash credits · Section 68 addition · source of money explanation · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · unexplained income · taxable receipts · burden of proof cash credits · Section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 147Section 142(1)Section 250Section 148

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumsurvey under section 133aaddition u/s 68addition under section 68share application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 69blive linkentry operator

Judgments citing Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

Toplink Developers Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31/[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 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…

Hemant Kumar Mulchandani, Jabalpur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 42/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 183Section 263

…credit or asset under reference is found absent or as non-satisfactory, so that the same, of income nature, is deemed as his unexplained income for the relevant year (Govindarajalu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Ganpathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)). More recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dy. CIT v. M.R. Logistics (P.) Ltd. held that merely because there has been a declaration under IDS, 2016, which in that case was of a related party, the same, unless linked with the impugned receipt, would not prove the same, again emphasizing that the…

M/S Silvertoss Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2282/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31/[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 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, Page 12 of 19 I.T.A. No.: 2282/Kol/2019 As…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Musaddilal Gems and Jewels Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 59/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

…ITA Nos.560 & 561/Hyd/2020 and ITA 58 & 59/Hyd/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Sl. ITA No Assess- Appellant / Respondent No ment Assessee Year 1 561/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAICM1288K 2 58/Hyd/2021 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. PAN : AAICM1288K 3 560/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Musaddilal Gems and Jewels Pvt. ACIT, Ltd., Central Circle 3(1), Hy…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(1), Hyderabad vs. Vaishnavi Bullion Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 58/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

…ITA Nos.560 & 561/Hyd/2020 and ITA 58 & 59/Hyd/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Sl. ITA No Assess- Appellant / Respondent No ment Assessee Year 1 561/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAICM1288K 2 58/Hyd/2021 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. PAN : AAICM1288K 3 560/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Musaddilal Gems and Jewels Pvt. ACIT, Ltd., Central Circle 3(1), Hy…

Vaishnavi Bullion Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 561/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

…ITA Nos.560 & 561/Hyd/2020 and ITA 58 & 59/Hyd/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Sl. ITA No Assess- Appellant / Respondent No ment Assessee Year 1 561/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAICM1288K 2 58/Hyd/2021 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. PAN : AAICM1288K 3 560/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Musaddilal Gems and Jewels Pvt. ACIT, Ltd., Central Circle 3(1), Hy…

Musaddilal Gems Jewels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 560/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

…ITA Nos.560 & 561/Hyd/2020 and ITA 58 & 59/Hyd/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Sl. ITA No Assess- Appellant / Respondent No ment Assessee Year 1 561/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAICM1288K 2 58/Hyd/2021 2017-18 Vaishnavi Bullion ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. PAN : AAICM1288K 3 560/Hyd/2020 2017-18 Musaddilal Gems and Jewels Pvt. ACIT, Ltd., Central Circle 3(1), Hy…

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3267/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80H

…ned in sec 68. AO rightly observed that in the garb of sales it is assesses own money which he introduced as sales. We further relied on the following judicial pronouncement as under  Roshan di Hatti Vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (S.C)  Kale khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT 50 ITR 1(S.C)  CIT Vs M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (S.C)  A.Govindarajulu Mudalair Vs CIT 34 ITR 807 (S.C) In view of the above addition u/s 68 is rightly made and ground no -4 raised by assessee are dismissed. 7 ITA No. 3267 Mum 2013 & 404 Mum 2016-Sabara Impex Ltd. 10. As far as ground no-5 is concerned that has been dealt in detail by the AO in it…

Harish Sharma HUF, B-1, Patodiya Marg, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 318/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…to add the said sum represented by such credit entry as income of the assessee. Therefore, prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the genuineness of such credit appearing in its books. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it is the income of the…

Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 236/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 236/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu H. No.229/K, Village-Tenduwa, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Dawps2766C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…the source and nature of a certain amount of cash received the AO is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of assessable in nature [A. Govindarajulu Mualiar V. CIT 34 ITR 807]. Further in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif V. CIT reported in 50 ITR 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the assessee disputes liability for tax it is for him to show either that the 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 Assessing Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income. I find that the appellant besides fur…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Vandana Ispat Limited, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…which the assessee actually evaded to discharge, as such a finding by the Id. CIT(A) is contrary to the ratio of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT[1977] 107 ITR 938 [SC], Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 [SC] ?” 4 14. “Whether on points of law and on facts 8s circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,59,00,000/- which is contrary to the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs PCIT-III, Kolkata (SLP No. 22566-22567 dt. 09.01.2017?” 15. “Whether o…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…matiDayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman/89/214 ITR 801 (SC) 214 ITR 801 (SC) ii. Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) iii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iv. Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [19…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…matiDayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman/89/214 ITR 801 (SC) 214 ITR 801 (SC) ii. Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) iii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iv. Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [19…

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…ntention that no addition shall be made by relying upon the books of accounts, which have been rejected. The appellant has filed a synopsis to the above effect. The appellant has been put to notice on the decision of the apex court, in Kale Khan M Hanif v CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) which the appellant humbly submits to be decided on different set of facts. b. The case of the assessee was reopened after estimation of income and the credits in the case of the assessee in the said case was not a business receipt and was a personal credit entry arising out of sale of gold, which was not the nature of the business of the asses…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…x) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) Nemichand Kothari V. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…x) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) Nemichand Kothari V. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…x) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) Nemichand Kothari V. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (GUJ) (xxx) Modi Creations (P) Ltd V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi) (xxxi) Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xxxii) CIT V. United Commercial and Industrial Co (P) Ltd (1991) 187 ITR (xxxiii) 596 (Cal) CIT V. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) (xxxiv) CIT V. Lachman Dass Oswal (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P & H) (xxxv) Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd V. CIT & EPT (1958) 34 ITR 888 (SC) (xxxvi) (xxxvii) CIT V. Sakarlal Balabhai (1968) 69 ITR 186 (Guj…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Subodh Singhania, Raipur

ITA 135/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.135/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Subodh Singhania 5th School Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AJJPS4392P ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by :Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CA Revenue by :Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pro…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

…he assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source [Roshan di Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) / Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC)]. It is settled law that if the initial burden is discharged by the assessee by producing sufficient evidences/materials in support of loan transaction, the onus gets shifted to the assessing officer who after verification/examination can further requisition evidence/details from the assessee. [SK Bothra & Sons HUF Vs. ITO (2011) 203 Taxman 436…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ent by account payee cheque was not sacrosanct nor could it make a non-genuine transaction genuine. Hence, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the additions of unexplained cash credits and interest thereon." (ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CITI 1963 ] 50 ITR 1 (SC) "It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the 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 ITO…