Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT

72 ITR 757High Court1969#4539 most cited

What is Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT authority for?

Where an assessee encashes high denomination currency notes after a demonetisation ordinance and provides an explanation for their source, the assessing officer must disbelieve the explanation with material evidence before treating the amount as income from an undisclosed source.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT · 72 ITR 757 · High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance · 1946 · undisclosed income · source of cash · demonetisation period · explanation of source

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 144BSection 147Section 44ABSection 68Section 69A

Judgments citing Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT

ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi vs. Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6017/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…td. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (2008}305ITR0202. (2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v . P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278. (3) Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214ITR801(SC);[1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on K. S. Kannan Kunhi V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757(Ker) considered. (4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169. (5) CIT-V Oasis Hospital P Ltd. [2011]333 1TR 119 (Delhi). (6) NR Portfolio - ITA Nos. 1018/2011& 1019/2011 Accordingly, he held that the amount of share application money of Rs. 55 lacs have been…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 584/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…td. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (2008}305ITR0202. (2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v . P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278. (3) Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214ITR801(SC);[1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on K. S. Kannan Kunhi V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757(Ker) considered. (4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169. (5) CIT-V Oasis Hospital P Ltd. [2011]333 1TR 119 (Delhi). (6) NR Portfolio - ITA Nos. 1018/2011& 1019/2011 Accordingly, he held that the amount of share application money of Rs. 55 lacs have been…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3299/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…td. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (2008}305ITR0202. (2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v . P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278. (3) Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214ITR801(SC);[1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on K. S. Kannan Kunhi V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757(Ker) considered. (4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169. (5) CIT-V Oasis Hospital P Ltd. [2011]333 1TR 119 (Delhi). (6) NR Portfolio - ITA Nos. 1018/2011& 1019/2011 Accordingly, he held that the amount of share application money of Rs. 55 lacs have been…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 1029/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…td. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (2008}305ITR0202. (2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v . P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278. (3) Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214ITR801(SC);[1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on K. S. Kannan Kunhi V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757(Ker) considered. (4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169. (5) CIT-V Oasis Hospital P Ltd. [2011]333 1TR 119 (Delhi). (6) NR Portfolio - ITA Nos. 1018/2011& 1019/2011 Accordingly, he held that the amount of share application money of Rs. 55 lacs have been…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 585/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…td. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (2008}305ITR0202. (2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v . P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278. (3) Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214ITR801(SC);[1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on K. S. Kannan Kunhi V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757(Ker) considered. (4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169. (5) CIT-V Oasis Hospital P Ltd. [2011]333 1TR 119 (Delhi). (6) NR Portfolio - ITA Nos. 1018/2011& 1019/2011 Accordingly, he held that the amount of share application money of Rs. 55 lacs have been…

Commr.of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala

C.A. No.-002540-002540 - 2007Supreme Court15 May 2007
For Respondent: P. Mohanakala
Section 68Section 6B

…can be held against the assessee that it was a receipt of an income nature. The alternative submission made by Shri Iyer before us would not help the assessees in this case in hand. In K.S. Kannan Kunhi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala [1969] 72 ITR 757, the High Court came to the conclusion that the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner have not considered the acceptability otherwise of the assessee’s explanation about the credit nature, except making an assertion that it was not acceptable. On the facts it was held that whether it should be inferred that the ht…