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 367,164 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

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

…ource and nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income- tax (1963) 30 ITR 1 (SC)[08-02-1963) it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "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 the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Solitaire Foods Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 1647/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1647/Del/2024, (A.Y.2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…sed upon the judgements in favor of the appellants. However, reliance should also have been placed other judicial pronouncement and analysis with respect to the case. Like: Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v.CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that "If an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature". Further, in the case of Som Nath Maini v CIT, [2008] 306 ITR 414 the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryan…

Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1151/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd……………………………………………..…..……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aahcm6624J] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata............…....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.09.2012 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.4,540/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Due To Large Share Premium Received By The Assessee During The Relevant Financial Year. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 142(1) & 142(2) Of The Act Requesting For Furnishing Requisite Information. In Response To The Notices, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Provided Primary Details Including An Explanation That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. Upon

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…e reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” (supra) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “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 I.T.A. No.1151/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the trans…

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…tion so as to prove the genuineness of said share transactions. Hence, the first limb of section 68 is clearly attracted in this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti V CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1, held as under: "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 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 ass…

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4187/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ess of the transaction. As the Assessee failed to submit even the basic confirmation and therefore relying on various judgments as recorded in the assessment order such as Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 937 (SC)/Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) the unsecured loan amounting to Rs.6,26,53,277/- is treated as non genuine and income from undisclosed sources brought into the books under the garb of unsecured loan and added the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act”. 3.1 The AO also made other addition of Rs.79,14,292/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act which we will deal later in the…

Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4079/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Heritage Hospitals Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 4090/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

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

…sion 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…

Sellappan Arulmurugan, Tiruchengode vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 2149/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2149/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sellappan Arulmurugan, Income Tax Officer, No.9/133, Pethampatty, V. Ward -1, Kangeyankadu, Vattur, Tiruchengode. Tiruchengode – 637 205. [Pan: Atfpa-4539-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ny explanation regarding these were Rs.49.30 lakhs but the deposits. 5.4 It is settled position that the onus is upon the appellant to prove genuineness of each and every transactions entered into. 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 found to have been received by an appellant, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the appellant and…

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…xman 31/[1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) the following aspects: • Proof of Identity of the creditors, • Capacity of creditors to advance money, and • Genuineness of transaction 8.4 Hon'ble Supreme 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…

Swaroop Narain Shiv Narain, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 517/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69B

…he same itself is taxable. Be that as it may, the onus is on the assesse to explain and substantiate the source. Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08- 03- 1977], Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC)[08-02-1963]] Unexplained stock cannot be presumed to be business income. If the assesse claims so, the assesse is required to prove the same. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC)[01-08-1968] Once it was found by Assessing Officer that there was excess stock, in absence…

Leading Age Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1114/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. 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 ca…

Leading Age Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 2(2), Central Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1113/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

M/S Arrowspace Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 344/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)

…rough normal banking channels, etc. in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from legal perspective and sum of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an i…

One Point Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(3), Kolkata

ITA 473/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 473/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 One Point Commercial Pvt. Ito, Wad 6(3), Ltd. Kolkata Vs 40/4, Strand Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Acvpj4013F) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & MsFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…ct. 13. Though there is no standard operating procedure stated under the Act adhering to which one can prove the nature and source of such sum but in the past Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the land mark judgment of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan-Di-Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 laid down the proposition 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 creditworthiness, then the AO must conduct an inqui…

Nitin Vijay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…IA A. GovindarajuluMudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 5 [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More 6 [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income- tax v. P. Mohanakala 7 [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax 8 [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax 9 [2016] 66 taxmann.com 288 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Kishore R. Ajmera 10 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2019 T…

Crystal Glazing & Cladding, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 93/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…not 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 lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. In Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), one of the questions referred was relating to the burden of proof, of the source of cash credit. It was held 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 liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exem…

Shankar Traders & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 68

…is required to explain the nature and source of such sum to the satisfaction of the ld. AO. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax dated 8th February, 1963 reported in [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) and Roshan-Di-Hatti vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition 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 creditworthiness, then the AO must conduct an…