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 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 366,470 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 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 250 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof source of source share capital and share premium survey under section 133a addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction section 69b live link entry operator

Judgments citing Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

Shri Tejas Arvindbhai Raval, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer (OSD) Ward-7(1), Now Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 336/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 336/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Tejas Arvindbhai Raval, Ito(Osd), बनाम/ 803, Anand Hari Tower, Ward – 7(1), Vs. Opp. Chanakya Tower Ahmedabad. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afupr 7933 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 68

…d to uphold the order of lower authorities for the addition to the extent of Rs. 51,140/-. Regarding the burden of proof on the assessee to explain the source of unexplained cash credit, we rely on the order of Apex court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif (50 ITR 1) wherein it was held as under: “The first question that arises for discussion is question No. 4, which was in these terms: "Whether the burden of proving the source of the cash credits is on the assessee ?" It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and that is how it was answered by the High Court. It is well establi…

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 998/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

…me of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money foun…

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 997/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota

ITA 1057/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

Sri Subrata Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 51(1), Kolkata

ITA 2275/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…he AO are not reproduced. AO has discussed in details that the entire process has been adopted to get the accommodation entry by the assessee. It would be relevant to refer to the following case laws:- Cash Credit (Sec.68) (i) Kale Khan Mohammad Hamif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) :- "Whether the burden of proving the source of the cash credits is on the assessee?" It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and that is how it was answered by the High Court. It is well established that the onus of proving ITA No.2275/Kol/2018, 1495-1496/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 14-15, 13-14 & 14-15 Sh S Banerjee Vs.…

ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tribute Trading and Finance Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1496/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tribute Trading and Finance Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1495/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 999/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

Seeram Padmanabha Jewellers Private Limited, Eluru vs. ITO, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S Seeram Padmanabha Vs. Income Tax Officer Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.6A-2-6, Near Gandhi Statue Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aaqcs9501F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR

Section 68

…fore confirmed the entire additions. The Ld.CIT(A) placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (supra) and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1 SC). Accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6 I.T.A. No.468 /Viz/2017 M/s Seeram Padmanabha Jewellers (P) Ltd., Eluru 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Appearing for the assessee, ShriG.V.N.Hari, Ld.Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a bullion trader and in th…

Shri Om Parkash Legal Heiar Smt Pushpa Verma, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

…he scope of the matter threadbare per its several decisions going back to as far back as late 1950s or early 1960s, i.e., even before the enactment of the Act [refer: Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (affirming the landmark decision [1958] 34 ITR 669 (MP))], reference, particularly in the context of the present case, which is qua section 41(1), be made to the decision in CIT v. S. Kamaraja Pandian [1984] 150 ITR 703 (Mad), clarifying that the assessee shall, inspite of entries to that effect in his accounts, have to establish the identity of the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jrd Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd

The appeal is allowed to this

ITA/544/2005HC Delhi12 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 260ASection 68

…is no anomaly in bringing to tax amounts on one or other head of income and also, additionally holding that Section 68 applied. Mr. Raghavendra Singh, learned counsel for the revenue, relied on Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) in this regard. It was submitted that the assessment record shows that the feeder accounts were opened either in the name of employees or in the name of persons who give their names for consideration and operate at the instruction of Mr. Ashok Gupta. Moreover, these persons have completely denied of having any knowledge of transactions in…

M/S. D. K. Industries, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 34(3), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1086/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 M/S D. K. Industries V/S. Income Tax Officer, 2, Clive Ghat Street, 3Rd Ward-34(3), 110, Shanti Floor, Kolkata-700001 Pally, Aayakar Bhawan, [Pan No.Aabfd 9250 E] Purva, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri K.L. Bothra, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P. Mukherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 02.03.2017, Passed In Case No.119/Cit(A)-10/Wd-34(3)/2013-14/Kol, Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Adding An Amount Of ₹22 Lac As Income From Undisclosed Sources In Assessment Order Dated 08.03.2013, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Vehemently Arguing Against & In Favour Of Impugned Addition Of Income From Undisclosed Source Of ₹22 Lac. Case File Perused. 2. Both The Learned Representatives Take Us To Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Reading As Under:-

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…see, it is open to the revenue to old that it is the income of the assessee and no further bu9rden lies on the revenue to hoe that the income is form any particular source – Rashan Di Hatti v. it [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); Kale Khan Mohannad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). (iv) The onus is on the assessee to discharge the onus that the cash creditor in a man of means to allow the cash credit. (v) In view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the expla…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajesh M Shah(HUF), Mumbai

ITA 7105/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7105/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya

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

…ies was genuine." 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938, Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT(SC) 50 ITR 1 and Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors vs. CIT(SC) 49 ITR 112." 4. The appellant prays that the order of the Learned CIT(A) on the above grounds be set side and that of the AO be restored. 3 I.T.A. No. 7105/Mum/2016 Rajesh M Shah (HUF) 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter or delete any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. The br…

Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Jammu

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

ITA 319/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…to be proved, the onus of which, in view of the deeming fiction of section 68, is on the assessee. As explained by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H), quoting from Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (at page 448 of the reports), that the onus of proving the source of the sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes being liable to tax, it is for him to show that the receipt was either not income, or if it is so, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such a proof…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

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

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…ional High Court, settling the law in the matter, we may refer to for the sake of completeness of discussion: Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) [affirming 34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) CIT v. Y.M. Singla [2…

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vikrant Kansal Prop. Vs. ITO Ward 1(3), V.K. Teleservices, Bathinda Bathinda [PAN: AGVPK 6899E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.) Respondent by: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.07.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘CI…

Mukund Kumar Mantri, Siliguri vs. I.to.WD - 1(3), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 1878/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member A.Y 2007-08 Mukund Kumar Mantri Vs. Income-tax Officer PAN:ADGPM 4585P Ward 1(3), Jalpaiguri [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant/ Assessee by : Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, ld.AR Respondent/ Department by : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 10-04-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04-07-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: The above appeal by the Assessee is against the order dt. 05-09- 2012 of the CIT-A, Jalpaiguri for the A.Y 2007-…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…e Apex Court, as well as by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court – to one of which the AO has referred, viz. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) 8 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) Dayal Singh & Sons v. CIT [2011] 33…

The Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur vs. Sh Joginder Singh, Gurdaspur

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

ITA 148/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 148/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)

Section 143(3)

…nk 501599 43,21,000/- 4. State Bank of Patiala 7217 43,000/- Total 66,23,500/- Reliance for the purpose was placed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the decisions in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); and Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) (refer paras 2 and 3 of the assessment order). In appeal, the assessee explained that he is in the business of manufacture of batteries, maintaining accounts. All the four bank accounts, deposits in which were enquired during assessment, fi…

Vidya Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Inl. Taxation Ward 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2016/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2016/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mrs.Vijaya Prabha, JCITFor Respondent: 15.05.2018

Section 10(38)Section 68

…tter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. (See : CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 SC (at pages 545, 547). Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif. Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, M. P. And Bhopal 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 pro…