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

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

…maintained in respect of unexplained cash and there are no evidence as how the money was given from one Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar & Four Others etc. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs CIT (50 ITR 1) and held that Hon’ble Supreme Court did not allow the benefit of the telescoping of undisclosed income from business against the cash credit due to lack of evidence that such business income was utilised in taking entry of the cash credit. 13.3 Before us also the Ld. counsel of the assessee has repeated the arguments of common pool of financial af…

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

…maintained in respect of unexplained cash and there are no evidence as how the money was given from one Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar & Four Others etc. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs CIT (50 ITR 1) and held that Hon’ble Supreme Court did not allow the benefit of the telescoping of undisclosed income from business against the cash credit due to lack of evidence that such business income was utilised in taking entry of the cash credit. 13.3 Before us also the Ld. counsel of the assessee has repeated the arguments of common pool of financial af…

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

…maintained in respect of unexplained cash and there are no evidence as how the money was given from one Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar & Four Others etc. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs CIT (50 ITR 1) and held that Hon’ble Supreme Court did not allow the benefit of the telescoping of undisclosed income from business against the cash credit due to lack of evidence that such business income was utilised in taking entry of the cash credit. 13.3 Before us also the Ld. counsel of the assessee has repeated the arguments of common pool of financial af…

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

…maintained in respect of unexplained cash and there are no evidence as how the money was given from one Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar & Four Others etc. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohamad Hanif Vs CIT (50 ITR 1) and held that Hon’ble Supreme Court did not allow the benefit of the telescoping of undisclosed income from business against the cash credit due to lack of evidence that such business income was utilised in taking entry of the cash credit. 13.3 Before us also the Ld. counsel of the assessee has repeated the arguments of common pool of financial af…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…towards cash credits which are not explained or which are not properly explained. This is because the source of the former is business whereas for the latter the Department does not have to locate any particular source [Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) impliedly overruling Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 301 (Pat) and impliedly approving Srinivas Ramkumar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 254 (Pat) and G.M. Chenna Basappa vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 576 (AP) on this point]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO having assessed the income of the assessee on a percentage basis, w…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1189/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.1189/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), [Now Readystream Infotech (P) Ltd.] New Delhi T-336/B, Gali No.8, Near Ojha Dharamshala, Gautampuri, Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm6581C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 68

…ty for the proposition that where an appellant fails to prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received, the A.O. is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature”. The supreme Court in kale Mohammad Hanif (1963) 50 ITR 14 (SC) held that- “It is now well-established that the onus of proving the sources 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 that the receipt was not income.... In the absence of such proof, the Assessing Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.... ” Th…

Shri Shri Niteshkumar Goyal, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 36/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Nitesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Com Con India Net Work Solution Shop No.327 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aigpg6386B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pandse, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pandse, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 68

…me is from an undisclosed source. The assessing officer is not required to specify or prove what that source is which from the nature of the case must be known only to the assessee (SethKalekhan Md. Haif V. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 669, 673, 674 (MP) affirmed (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) CIT V. Krishna Mining Co. (1972) 83 ITR 860 ( AP). Observing the provisions of Section 68 and the proof of having shown that the payment was made through account payee cheques through banking channels it was held by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court “ "It is clear on the terms of section 68 that the burden is on the assessee to offer a satisfactory…

Shri Narendra B. Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Himatnagar

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

ITA 3153/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 68Section 69

…has furnished the identity of the parties only which is not sufficient enough to discharge onus cast on the assessee under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT reported in 50 ITR 1 and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT reported in 107 ITR 938 has held that the primary onus to prove the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness with respect to the cash credit under section 68 of the Act lies upon the assessee. The relevant extract of observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (supra)…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Mysuru vs. Shri. H Omkarappa (HUF), Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2192/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. H. Omkarappa, (Huf), Ward - 1, #3, A Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga Sagar Road, Shivamogga. Pan : Aabhh 1124 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…income other than business income and agricultural income therefore, it has to be presumed that the unaccounted deposits have to be treated as turnover and gross profit to be added. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammed Hani 50 ITR 1 wherein it was held that if the Page 6 of 12 assessee declares undisclosed income as income from business which is the only source of income, the assessing officer cannot dispute unless he brings some material on record. In the present case, the appellant's only source of income is business and the appellant declared the above sum of Rs.2.23 crore…

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC -6 (3), Mumbai vs. Advent Developer Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3066/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3066/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Advent Developers Jt. Cit (Osd), Cc-6(3) R. No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Cts-12A/28A, 12A/29 Tp Air India Bldg, Nariman बिधम/ 33, Advent Atria, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad(W), Mumbai-400 064 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafca3158H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Ms. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.02.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenges The Impugned Order Dated 23.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 54, Mumbai In Short Referred As „Ld. Cit(A)‟ In 2

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR by
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ed by him. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Central-1 Vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd, reported in [2019] 103 taxman.com 48 (SC), after referring to the earlier decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938(SC), though decided in favour of the revenue, it is pertinent to consider the principles laid down in the said decision that “The onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to i…

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Vinodkumar Bajaj & Company HUF, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…owever, the facts on record nowhere establishes that such further inquiries/ investigations have subsequently been conducted by Ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition, we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Hatti vs.CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 178]. It is trite law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. After considering the entire case law as disc…

Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, VS. DCIT, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), PAN: AADCB 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. PAN: AADCB 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue by Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel for DR Date of hearing: 12/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 06/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MO…

DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Ysr Dist.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, VS. DCIT, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), PAN: AADCB 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. PAN: AADCB 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue by Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel for DR Date of hearing: 12/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 06/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MO…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nd Jain L/H/Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Versus the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 11 2022 SCC Online ITAT 28 12 (2012) SCC Online (Del.) 6466 13 2007 6 SCC 21 14 1977 2 SCC 378 15 1963 50 ITR 1 SC ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 28 of 150 Nagpur & Anr., Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017 dated 10.4.2017 wherein the Court upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal which had held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs. 5 of a little kno…

Ramlal Chauhan, Ujjain vs. ITO2(2), Ujjain

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 281/IND/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ramlal Chauhan, Ujjain PAN:ADMPC3840R : Appellant V/s ITO 2(2) Ujjain : Respondent Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is directed against the order of Ld. Commiss…

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Rakesh Shantilal ITO-18(3)(4), Shah, 608, 6th Floor, 82 Block, 7 Badrikeshwar Earnest House, Co-op Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Vs. Nariman Point, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 002 PAN: AAEPS0951N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S.Pvk Engineers Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 2168/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Pvk Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcp 9391Dm (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner of Vs. PVK Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN – AABCP 9391DM (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date of hearing: 30/09/2021 Date of pronouncement: 21/10/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against CIT(A) - 4, Hyderabad’s order dated 1…

M/S.Asit Dixit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 19/JAB/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

…e business having been estimated is by itself no bar for regarding a credit in the books of the business as unexplained and, thus, as its’ income, as explained by the Apex Court per its’ decisions, as in Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT [1963] 6 Asit Dixit v. ITO 50 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). This legal aspect, though to be fair was not canvassed before me, is yet clarified in view of it continuing to be raised before the Tribunal. In fact, irrespective of a pleading being assumed by either party before it, the Tribunal is duty bound to decide an appeal, being a continuat…

JCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Prasandi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4647/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 68

…l) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxman 157(Mag.)(Del). In order to cull the requirement envisaged u/s 68 of the Act for the acceptance of the credit, the Apex Court went by the time honoured authorities in Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (1977)107 ITR 938 (SC). The apex Court also approvingly cited from the observations of the Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gau). In order to be able to unravel the sinister designs of evasive and manipulative assessees, the Apex Court went by the ratio and standards enunciated in…

ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhusudan Rao Lagadapati, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 449/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITA No 449 of 2017 Madhusudan Rao Lagadapati Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Shri Madhusudan Rao Circle 16(1) Lagadapati, Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:ABCPL8904D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR Date of hearing: 12/08/2021 Date of pronouncement: 14/09/2021 ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 against t…