How many judgments cite Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT (234 ITR 571), spanning 2020 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 69A, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 147.

Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT

234 ITR 571High Court1998#4380 most cited

What is Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT authority for?

Once an assessee successfully proves the source of money, they cannot be compelled to provide proof of how that money was acquired in specific denominations of currency notes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT · section 68 · proof of source of money · proof of acquisition of currency notes · Bombay High Court · 1998

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 68 Section 69A Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 69 Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

period of holding section 148(2)section 34 live link section 254(1)borrowed satisfaction section 115bb section 115bbe addition under section 68 section 115b principal commissioner of income-tax income-tax officer

Judgments citing Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…the withdrawn cash constitutes the sources for ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 explaining the impugned cash deposits into the bank accounts. Bombay High judgment in the cae of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) 234 ITR 571 is relied. (v) & (vi) If there is availability of cash with the assessee prior to the date of cash deposit in Bank accounts, if the AO is under obligation to accept the claim of the assessee or not & ) if the AO is under obligation to accept the claim of the assessee: In matters of considering the withdrawn cash as the sources of cash deposits, e…

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals\nof the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.2178, 1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Accpa9340F\Nita No. 1613/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2017-18)\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\Nshri Sk Tulsian, Ar\Nrevenue By\Nshri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N03.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N18.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Against\Nthe Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.08.2025, 27.05.2025 For A.Y.\N2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Appeals Are Relating\Nto Same Assessee & Involves Commons Issues, Therefore All These\Nappeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity.\Npage 2\Nita Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\Nsushil Mitruka; Ays 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\Nfirst Of All We Shall Take Ita No. 2178/Kol/2025 A.Y. 214-15 For\Nadjudication.\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nita No. 2178/Kol/2025\N2.\Nthe Issue Raised In Ground No.1 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)\Nupholding The Reopening Of Assessment, Which Was Based Upon\Nborrowed Satisfaction Without Examining The Records & Without\Napplication Of Mind & Accordingly, The Reopening Of Assessment Bas\Nbad In Law.\N2.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…n cash constitutes the sources for\nPage 12\nITA Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025\nSushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\nexplaining the impugned cash deposits into the bank accounts. Bombay High\njudgment in the cae of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) 234 ITR 571 is relied.\n(v) & (vi) If there is availability of cash with the assessee prior to the date of cash\ndeposit in Bank accounts, if the AO is under obligation to accept the claim of the\nassessee or not & ) if the AO is under obligation to accept the claim of the\nassessee: In matters of considering the withdrawn cash as the sources of cash\ndeposi…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUSHIL MITRUKA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

CHENNIAPPA GOUNDER DEIVASIGAMANI,KANGAYAM vs. WARD I(4) / TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

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

ITA 2380/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2380/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chenniappa Gounder The Income Tax Officer, Deivasigamani, Vs. Ward 1(4), 565/4-A, Tirupur Sivamathy Modern Rice Mill, Agasthilingampalayam Road, Tiruppur – 638 701. Pan: Aenpd 8814L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Harinandha Kumar, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Harinandha Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…of another person or receive into his possession from another person any high denomination banknote.” The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on one decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) vs. CIT reported in (1998) 234 ITR 571 and stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that where the assessee is required to prove source of money, in such case and once, he is successful in proving that source, he could not be asked to produce proof of acquisition of such amount in currency notes of particular denominations. The ld.counsel for the assessee relie…

MR.MOHAMED MEERA WAHITHA,SIVAGANGAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , KARAIKUDI

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

ITA 1955/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-3/12-H, Bungalow Oorani Street, Income Tax, Puduvayal, Karaikudi Taluk, Circle 1, Sivagangai 630 108. Karaikudi. [Pan:Aajpw6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 44ASection 69Section 69A

…of another person or receive into his possession from another person any high denomination banknote.” The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on one decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) vs. CIT reported in (1998) 234 ITR 571 and stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that where the assessee is required to prove source of money, in such case and once, he is successful in proving that source, he could not be asked to produce proof of acquisition of such amount in currency notes of particular denominations. The ld. counsel for the assessee reli…

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

ITA 800/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 69A

…not be doubted. 5. When there is sufficient balance in cash book as on date of deposit during demonetization, no addition for cash deposited out of it in the bank can be made, as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay) (HC)…

GNANAPRAGASAM BHASKAR,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, NCW-1,, DINDIGUL

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

ITA 3069/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/22-C, Sahayamatha Colony, Non Corporate Ward 1, T.V.K. Nagar, Chinnalapatti Post, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 301. [Pan:Ahtpb8288M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 246 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 69A

…of another person or receive into his possession from another person any high denomination banknote.” The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on one decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) vs. CIT reported in (1998) 234 ITR 571 and stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that where the assessee is required to prove source of money, in such case and once, he is successful in proving that source, he could not be asked to produce proof of acquisition of such amount in currency notes of particular denominations. The ld. counsel for the assessee reli…

GOPALSAMY SATHIYAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.582/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 669/2, Kuttuputhur Main Road, Ward 2, Mohanur Oruvandur Post, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Dwbps4361A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…ve into his possession from another person any high denomination banknote.” 9 I.T.A. No.582/Chny/25 The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on one decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) vs. CIT reported in (1998) 234 ITR 571 and stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that where the assessee is required to prove source of money, in such case and once, he is successful in proving that source, he could not be asked to produce proof of acquisition of such amount in currency notes of particular denominations. The ld. counsel for the assessee reli…

ARUMUGAM SIVASANKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4,, CUDDAORE

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

ITA 553/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Sivasankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 160, National Agencies Ward 4, Main Road, Vasistapuram, Tittagudi, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 606 106. [Pan:Adqps5673J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

…of another person or receive into his possession from another person any high denomination banknote.” The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on one decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) vs. CIT reported in (1998) 234 ITR 571 and stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that where the assessee is required to prove source of money, in such case and once, he is successful in proving that source, he could not be asked to produce proof of acquisition of such amount in currency notes of particular denominations. The ld. counsel for the assessee reli…

SHASHIKALA BHIMACHARYA MALAGI,GOKAK, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, WARD-1, GOKAK, GOKAK, KARNATKA

The appeal is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 180/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi 0, Soubhagya, Kalyan Housing Colony, Gokak, Belgaum-591307 Pan : Bdypm3708B . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1055706480(1) Dt. 04/09/2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 20/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…7 (Cal.)], ‘M. L. Tewary Vs CIT’ [1955, 27 ITR 630 (PAT.)] Per contra, if assessee prove of having sufficient SBN balance in hand prior to such demonetisation deposits, then succeeds in explaining nature & source in view of ‘Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bom)]. Since neither party proved their version of contention which could pass test of reasonability for acceptance, therefore to balance the rival concern; we are of considered view that neither the explanation of appellant could be disbelieved in its entirety nor of the respondent believe that nothing could left with the appellant out of such…

ACIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SAMVARDHAN MARKETING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 27/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicialmember Acit, Circle 22(2), Vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 2366, Satya Chambers, Rajguru Road, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Aalcs8254L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar, Ca Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

…Global (P.) Ltd. (2022) 134 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi HC); (ii) Hirapanna Jewellers vs. ACIT (2021) 128 taxmann.com 291 (Visakhapatnam – Trib.); (iii) Charu Aggarwal vs. DCIT (2022) 140 taxmann.com 58 (Chandigarh – Trib.); (iv) Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bombay HC); (v) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat.)(HC); (vi) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC); (vii) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All.)(HC); 14 Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC); (ix) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat.)(HC); (x) Lalchand Bha…

SHRI HARESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL MAHADEVWALA HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

…on 7 Hareshkumar Jayantilal Mahadevwala HUF Vs ITO of Section 115BBE of the Act. To support such submission that the addition on account of unexplained cash credit is not warranted, relied on the following decisions: (1) Narendra G. Goradia HUF Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) CIT Vs. Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (3) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (4) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (5) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (6) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 619 (Kar) (7) Vinatha Madhusdan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 151 (Mum Trib) (8) R.S. Diamond…

KRISHNA HIREN GUJARATI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 3(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Hiren Gujarati, I.T.O., C-24, Krishna Park Society, Opp. Ward-3(2)(4), Vs. Bhagat Nagar, Ved Gurukul Road, Surat. Surat-4 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…e applied for the transaction made prior to substitution of Section 115BBE of the Act. To support her submission that the addition on account of unexplained cash credit is not warranted, relied on the following decisions: (1) Narendra G. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (pat) (6) R.S. Diamond (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum Trib) On the wrong invocation/application of S…

USHABEN VINODBHAI BELADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 246/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aimpb4673N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…ction 69A of the Act, the word used is ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. In support of the above submission, assessee relies on the following decisions of the courts and tribunal: (i) CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) (ii) Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay)(HC) (iii) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) (HC) ITA.246/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya (iv) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC) (v) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (ALL.) (HC) It is submitted that the assessee receives rent income and the assessee has not got any other…

MANASI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemanasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd V. Dcit, Central Circle 3(4) Office No. 37, 97/101 Room No. 1915 Mumbadevi Diamond Premises Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002 Pan: Aabcm5354P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) held that The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay) relying on the decision of Hon'ble apex court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) and Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) held that where the business, the state of accounts and dealings of the Appellant justify a reasonable inference that he might have for convenience kept the whole or a…

JITENDRA NEMICHAND GUPTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 211/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, I.T.O., B-102, Swastik Woods, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(2), Vs. Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Ammpg 2317 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…t the submissions on merit and invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act, the assessee filed following case laws: (1) Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 60 Taxman 248 (SC) (2) ITO Vs Ashwin d. Menta Tax Appeal No. 386 of 2000 (3) Narendra g. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (4) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (5) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (6) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (all) (7) Anantpur Kalpana Vs ITO (2022) 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bang Trib) (8) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs CIT 287 ITR 0547 (SC) (9) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) 6 Jitendra Nemic…

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…1 511277 2011-12 427388 2012-13 634220 2013-14 673340 2014-15 622070 2015-16 600560 2016-17 667210 8. The addition with regard to unexplained cash credit, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following case laws: (1) Narendra G Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat) (6) CIT Vs Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (7) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 0619 (Kar) (8) Vinatha Madh…

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…erent dates, the Assessing officer cannot make any adverse inference to make the addition on the presumption that cash declared consists of only Rs. 1000 or Rs. 500 Notes. The same has been upheld in the case laws as below.  Narendra G. Goradia v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (HC)  CIT v. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 212 ITR 417 (Cal) (HC)  CIT v. Laxmandas Bhatiya (1996) 217 ITR 878 (MP) (HC)  Bal Velbal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 130 (SC)  Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (HC)  ITO V. ITAT (1998) 229 ITR 651 (Pa) (HC)  GK Padmaraju v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 412 (AP) (HC) vi) Additionally t…

THAKORDAS PAREKH & SONS,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…herefore, sales cannot be disturbed by Assessing Officer unless it does not match with the turnover disclosed before VAT Department. To support such submission, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following case law:  Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom)  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat)  Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All)  Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)  Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat)  CIT vs. Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del)  Atish Singla Vs Income Tax Officer [ITA No.1185/Del/2021 dated 06.04.2022 …

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2