What is Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT authority for?

The assessee must explain the nature and source of any sum credited in their accounts, including bank statements, and mere book entries or banking channels without financial capacity are insufficient to prove genuineness under Section 68. The case also holds that wrong quoting of a section is not fatal to proceedings, emphasizing substance over form.

How many judgments cite Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT (113 ITD 377), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 69A, Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 147.

Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT (113 ITD 377)

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ontrolled and operated by the assessee as the turnover of the accommodation entry business and commission income has to be estimated thereon. -Other case laws: DCIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprises ITA No. 374/Rjt/2017 dt.29-6- 2022 (Encl.8) Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT 113 ITD 377 (Del) (Tri) (Encl.9) 30 Sh. Padam Kumar Goyal vs. ITO Therefore considering the totality of the facts and circumstances the addition made are unsustainable in the eyes of the law and hence the same deserves to be deleted. Alternatively and without prejudice to above, only commission income can be charged in such circumstances and as held by the…

Shubhchand Dharamchand Minda, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 397/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2021-22 Shubhchand Dharamchand Income Tax Officer, Minda, Ward-42(1)(5), Flat No. 121, 6Th Floor, Vs. Kb-945, Kautilya Bhavan, Sushila Apartment, L.T.Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali West, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Mumbai Pan : Aaepm5841P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca & Shri Kushal Chand Mehta, Ca For Revenue : Shri Dinesh A. Chourasia Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh A. Chourasia

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2021-22 Shubhchand Dharamchand Income Tax Officer, Minda, Ward-42(1)(5), Flat No. 121, 6th Floor, vs. KB-945, Kautilya Bhavan, Sushila Apartment, L.T.Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali West, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Mumbai PAN : AAEPM5841P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bharat Kumar, CA & Shri Kushal Chand Mehta, CA For Revenue : Shri Dinesh A. Chourasia Date of Hearing : 30-05-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27-08-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BA…

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

…ent was filed Whether since amount in savings bank account of assessee remained unexplained, Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under section 69A Held, Yes [Para 4] [In faovur of Revenue]." In the case of Manoj Aggrawal Vs. DCIT (ITAT, SB-Del) 113 ITD 377, the ITАТ, Delhi held that: "Cash deposit in bank should be explained by assessee, otherwise it is unexplained money u/s 69A - Held - Yes." In view of the above discussion, considering the cash in hand with the appellant as on 1 April 2016 and as on 31 March 2018, it is derived that the appellant was habitually maintaining a cash in hand of rou…

Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 898/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AParithivel, D.R

Section 142Section 234Section 250Section 68

…ITA No.898/Bang/2023 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya ITO 12th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka PAN NO.AGEPD9313P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue by : Shri AParithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEM…

Rajesh G Jain, Mira-Bhayandar vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thane Park

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

ITA 150/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Lalit MunoyatFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 250Section 254(1)

…not furnish the confirmation from these parties. We find that the issue of whether unpaid trade creditors could be added under section 68 of the Act came up for consideration before a five-member Special Bench of the Tribunal in Manoj Agarwal v/s DCIT, [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Delhi), wherein it was observed as under:- “178. …..The argument that section 68 is not applicable where an asset is sold and the sale proceeds are credited in the books of account cannot be accepted having regard to the settled legal position that it is always for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh vs. Shri Raju, Kishangarh

ITA 507/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT

What is Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

Shubhchand Dharamchand Minda, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

Rajesh G Jain, Mira-Bhayandar vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thane Park

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh vs. Shri Raju, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Govind Narayan Sharma, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Govind Narayan Sharma, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh