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)

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/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…

Mohkam Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panipat

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7919/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohkam Singh, Vs Ito, S/O-Shri Chota Ram, H.No.255, Ward-2, Sector-6, Huda, Panipat, Panipat. Haryana-132103. Pan-Awxps8147H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K.C.Aneja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 148Section 69A

…ng sufficient and numerous opportunities. It is settled dictum of law that prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entries found in the books of account in the assessee. In landmark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Anif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) vide which it is held that onus of providing the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is opened to the revenue to hold that it is the income of assessee and no further burden is on th…

M/S. Yelahanka - Ap Border Tollways Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 68

…same from the creditor. However, in the case under consideration, admittedly the appellant failed to provide any such confirmations. The notices sent by the AO to the creditors also remained un-responded. In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), the SC had 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. Considering above the action of the AO in making addition to the extent of Rs 1,34,25,045/- is upheld, although the relevant provision would be Section 68…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be consider by applying the test of human probabilities (CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT, in 50 ITR 1 (SC) held that “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…

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABPP0130D Appellant .. Respondent CO No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. DCIT, CC-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Sandesh Kumar Jain, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…edit in the assessee‟s accounts or an unexplained asset found with it, for which reference is made to CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar (M.) [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), cited during hearing itself. Reference may also be made to Seth Kale Khan Mohamed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). In the facts of both these cases, the assessee‟s business income was estimated consequent to rejection of it‟s books of account as unreliable. The Revenue also bringing to tax unexplained credit/s therein, challenged by the assessee on that basis, the Apex Court explained that the…

Shri Naveen Shivaprakash Kottigere, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 621/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(C)Section 68

…On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), relied the judgments in the Shri Naveen Shivaprakash Kottigere, Bangalore Page 3 of 6 case of Roshan di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT 50 ITR 1 which is distinguishable fact and case of the Appellant, hence the order of the both authorities are liable to be set aside. 6. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) confirmed the levied tax, interest and under section 234A & 234B, penalty under section 271(1)(C) & 271(F) levied are excessive arbitrary and ought to be deleted in the interest of justice. 4…

M/S Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-6, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40ASection 40aSection 68

…rong placing of onus arises in the case and no question of law arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal." 13.2.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Roshan Di Hattiv. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) held 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 of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lie…

Bhadanes Hitech Technology Computer Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Nashik

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1289/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that income is from any particular source. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1, held that “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 provision of Income Tax Act. In the absence of such pro…

Hemal Manubhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3604/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 Hemal Manubhai Patel Ito, Ward-2 Plot No.746/2 Vs Gandhinagar. Sector No.6/B Gandhinagar 382 006. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Divatia, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…s of proving the source of the sum of money said to have been received 8 by an assessee is on the assessee to prove identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the party as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT., 50 ITR 1 (SC). Having not discharged the initial onus of proving identity, credit- worthiness and genuineness of the transaction of cash credit, the additions made by the lower authorities do not require any interference. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby rejected and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, appeal of th…

Jay Nanda Mataji Co.Op. Credit Society Lte, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 31(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 257/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jay Nanda Mataji Co-Operative Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Credit Society Limited, R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Shop No. 153/5/6, General Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Arunkumar Vaidya Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (East), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400065. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaaj 5397 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. G.C. Lalka, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 69A

…be onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee additions back into the income of the assessee as held in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT|19631 50 ITR 1 (SC) as held in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT|19631 50 ITR 1 (SC) as held in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT|19631 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [19771 107 ITR 938 (SC). This onus on the and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [19771 107 ITR 938 (SC). This onus on the and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [19771 107 ITR 938 (SC). This onus on the tax payer has n…