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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d. D.R. even though vehemently relied on the following decisions, but all these decisions are prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra):- 1. Kale Khan Mohammand Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). 2. CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). 3. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd., vs CIT (2008) 305 ITR 202 (Delhi). 4. Bhartesh Jain vs DCIT (Del) 483 CTR 201 dated 07.04.2006. 5. CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 23. In view of these facts, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs…

ITO 24(3)-4, Mumbai vs. Renuka Ajay Maru, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3192/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)

…e. by way of cash / cheque), identify and creditworthiness of the person from whom such loan has been accepted namely copy of bank statement, copy of return of such loan 8 party, etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) that the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the assessee’s account or in the account of a third party. It is well settled that in order to discharge the onus, the assessee must prove the following: (i) the identity of the creditor, (ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money; a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Aruna Hotels Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3108/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate

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

…sessee claiming the credit thereof. Once this primary onus has been discharge the onus would shift to the AO contesting the claim. In the instant case the primary onus remains discharged by the appellant and hence the ratio in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 would apply. Similarly, the ratio in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) would apply. In that case it was held by the Apex Court that once the credit was owned up the same could not be brought to tax in the hands of the company and the Revenue was free to proceed to examine the creditworthiness…

Alpa Kheraj Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3761/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Paras S Savla, &For Respondent: Mr. B.S. Bist,DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…sheet or other documents were filed along with the return of income of the assessee’s mother to indicate that the said bank account has been disclosed in the mother’s return of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) that the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the assessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the A.O. to make a fresh assessment as per the provisions of the Act after gi…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…edits and if it fails to rebut the evidence available in the form of credit entry in its books, it can be added as income. A reference was made to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: " Govindaraju Mudaliyar 34 ITR 807 " Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif 50 ITR 1 " Devi Prasad Biswanath Prasad 72 ITR 194 " Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 " P. Mohana Kala 291 ITR 278 9. The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported at 228 Taxman 88 wherein it has been held that where the 26 Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd. assessee failed to off…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…rse of assessment proceedings. 6.3 Let us delineate the law relating to onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee. It is well established by a set of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT(1963) 50 ITR 1(SC), Govindarajulu Mudaliar(A) v. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 807(SC), CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC), that the onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee is upon him. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT(1963) 49 ITR 112(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is an entry in the account books of the asse…

Alvi Tech Services P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan

ITA 7481/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7481/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Alvi Tech Services Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shivam Palace, Income Tax – Circle 1, V. G-3, Chinchpada Road, Kalyan. Kalyan (East) – 421 306. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafca5622A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal

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

…own at Rs.5,33,01,281.48 and thus the assessee has increased the capital by Rs.3,53,40,307/- without any basis. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan D Hatti v. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. Thus, the A.O. held that the claim of the assessee for such huge capital balance is therefore not supported by any documentary evidence. Thus, the share subscribed of Rs.70,00,000/- and share application money of Rs.2…

Prashant Toraskar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1)

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

ITA 5813/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Prashant Toraskar Asst. Cit-25(1), बनाम/ 101, 1St Floor, Sunflower Chs, Mumbai St. Francis Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt 5707 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun Ghia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.6.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 07.3.2013. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Is Explained By Way Of An Affidavit Dated 11.4.2016 By The Appellant As Caused Under The Bona Fide Impression Of Having Been Filed In Time; He Being Engaged In Identifying A Counsel For Advice & Representation Before The Tribunal And, Thus, In Filing The Appeal, Resulting In It Being

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni

Section 143(3)

…01 (SC); 2) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938(SC); 3) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); 4) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); 3 Prashant Toraskar vs. Asst. CIT 5) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and 6) A. Govindarjulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, the burden to prove the nature and source of the credit/deposit in his bank account is on the assessee, in the absence of which the same is liable to be…

Imtiyaz Amirullah Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 2018/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2018/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Imtiyaz Amirullah Khan Ito-17(2)(4), Gr. Floor, R. No. 1A, Mumbai बनाम/ Near Municiple Market, Ch-011, Vs. Gate No. 6, Sewree Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Azpk 9500 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shekhar Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.8.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 26.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.2.2016, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010- 11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2. The Sole Issue Arising In The Instant Case Is The Extent Of Income Liable To Be Brought To Tax Against Undisclosed Cash Deposits In The Assessee’S Bank Account With Icici Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai (Account Number 087401500061).

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi

Section 143(3)Section 68

…were claimed, the said explanation was found not acceptable by the A.O. who, relying on the decisions in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 151 (All), treated the entire cash deposited (Rs. 88.45 lacs) as income assessable u/s. 68 of the Act. However, as the assessee had already disclosed the turnover of Rs.15.62 lacs, credit for the same was allowed and only the excess turnover of Rs.72,82,890/- (Rs.88,45,200 – Rs.15,62,310) add…

ITO 25(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Bhavna N Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta

Section 69A

…the same in his books of accounts. 7.6. The AO while structuring the additions u/s 69A has relied on the following decisions: LakhmichandBaijnath v CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) / Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v R S Rathore [1995] 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) 7.7. In the case of the above mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court, the appellant had received / credited a certain sum of money in his books of accounts for which certain explanation was given by the assessee which was rejected by all the Income Tax Authorities and theref…

M/S Givo Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2041/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…t 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 is entitled to treat it as taxable income - Kale Khan Mohammad Hanifv. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (sq. (ix)In determining whether a voluntary payment is taxable in the hands of the recipient or not, the point is not what the donor thought he was doing but why the donee received it. As observed in Herbert v. Mc Quade [1902] 2 KB 631, 'the test is whether from the stand point of the person who receives it, it accrues to him by virtue of his offic…

Tilak Raj Anand, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4593/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyshri Tilak Raj Anand, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Hotel Continenta, Circle-8(1), Regal Building, Behind Regal New Delhi Cinema, New Delhi Pan: Adrpa4243P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 143Section 68

…nd Vs DCIT 2. CIT v Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) - It has been held that evidences to prove creditworthiness to donor/creditor is very vital and that the assessee is required to prove even the source of the source. 3. CS-Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) - Asstt of unexplained cash credits in the a/c of business assessable as income from undisclosed sources. Cash credits appearing in accounts relating to business remaining unexplained. 4. CIT v P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) It is stated that: "It is true that even after rejecting the explanation given by the assessee if unacceptable, th…

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR

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

…) of the Act. The AO relied upon the following decisions while arriving at the conclusion as set out above: a) Aluminium Small Industries Limited v. ITO (2006) 103 ITD 142(Kol.) b) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT , 107 ITR 938(SC) c) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT , 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad , 72 ITR 194(SC) e) Sumati Dayal v. CIT , 80 Taxman 89(SC) f) CIT v. M Ganapathi Mudaliar , 53 ITR 623(SC) g) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC) h) CIT v. Calcutta Agency Limited, 19 ITR 191(SC) i) CIT v. Transport Corporation of India Limited 256 ITR 701(AP HC) j) CIT v. Imperial Chemicals In…

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2829/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…cedure. The law in the matter is again well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: A. 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 (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is as it is only where the STT is chargeable, that an exe…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)

M/S. Ram Pal & Party (AOP), New Delhi vs. ITO (OSD), New Delhi

ITA 830/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ram Pal & Party (Aop), Vs. Ito (Osd), E-78, 1St Floor, Lic Colony, Delhi-Ix, Paschim Vihar, Cr Building, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaar3396R Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 68

…he appellant AOP as unverified and made an addition of Rs.1,94,00,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act after recording detailed reasons in the assessment order. 2.3. The AO placed reliance in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Khanif Vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that the onus of proving the source of sum of money found to have been received by the appellant is on him. The AO placed reliance in the case of CIT Vs. United Commercial Bank Ltd., 187 ITR 596 (Ca I), wherein it has been held that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the asse…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ram Pal & Party (AOP), New Delhi

ITA 1031/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 68

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7344/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh

Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

ITTA/125/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA-783/2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…e of the assessee. It is argued that there are plenty of decisions supporting this stand of the Revenue and some of these are as under: a. Govindrajuly\u Murlidhar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) b. Lakhmichand vs. CIT, 35 ITR 416 (SC) c. Kalekhan vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) d. CIT vs. Visvanath Parsad, 72 ITR 194 (SC) The learned counsel also contended that the plea of the assessee that, since the transactions were through cheque, the same are genuine, does not hold good and tenable. He referred to the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Precession Finance Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (CAL). His fur…