Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

101 TTJ 505Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#18588 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68

Judgments citing Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…pon him. The element of credit worthiness and satisfaction of AO thereafter is subjective and requires more efforts/inquiry on the part of the AO to give a finding in the order that lender is not credit worthy. 8.8 In the case of Devinder Singh v. ACIT [2006] 101 TTJ 505 (ITAT-Asr) it has been held that there is nothing in Section 68 that books of account must be rejected before making an addition under Section 68. This is an independent and deeming provision and will apply if the assessee fails to offer an explanation of the source of particular receipt/credit appearing in the books of account or if the explanat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Shri S. Moorthy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3091/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3091/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3091/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The ACIT, Shri S. Moorthy, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), No.25, Muthumari Amman Koil v. Chennai – 34. Street, Navalar Nagar, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. PAN: AFBPM7143Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respon…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ambarwadikar & Company, Aurangabad

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

ITA 2039/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142

…that no separate addition can be made u/s.69C of the Act once the profits are estimated. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions : a. CIT Vs. K.M.N. Naidu 221 ITR 451 b. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 c. Devinder Singh Vs. ACIT 101 TTJ 505 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and Law and without prejudice to Ground No.1 in the original Grounds of Appeal, the Ld.CIT(A), Aurangabad erred in estimating the profits for A.Y. 2010-11 at 13% by comparing other cases ignoring the fact that profit @24% was declared by the assessee itself for the A.Y.2011-12 which was better compar…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ambarwadikar & Company, Aurangabad

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

ITA 2038/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142

…that no separate addition can be made u/s.69C of the Act once the profits are estimated. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions : a. CIT Vs. K.M.N. Naidu 221 ITR 451 b. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 c. Devinder Singh Vs. ACIT 101 TTJ 505 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and Law and without prejudice to Ground No.1 in the original Grounds of Appeal, the Ld.CIT(A), Aurangabad erred in estimating the profits for A.Y. 2010-11 at 13% by comparing other cases ignoring the fact that profit @24% was declared by the assessee itself for the A.Y.2011-12 which was better compar…

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (101 TTJ 505) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax