P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT

73 ITR 735Supreme Court of India1969#1971 most cited

What is P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT authority for?

The assessee bears the onus to prove the genuineness and voluntary nature of donations received, including corpus donations. Failure to discharge this burden allows the Assessing Officer to treat such donations as non-genuine or accommodation entries.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT · 73 ITR 735 · genuineness of donations · onus of proving donations · burden of proof for donations · corpus donations · accommodation entries · assessee's obligation to prove · cash credits genuineness · non-genuine donations

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 115BBESection 129

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 153(c)(1)section 153(c)retraction of statementsection 131(1)corpus donationstatement under section 132(4)section 153c(1)dumb documentssection 132(4a)section 2(15)section 34

Judgments citing P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2276/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…not\nevidence to be voluntary and that the assessee has not discharged the onus of\nproving the genuineness of the donations. The ld DR placed reliance on various\njudicial precedents as listed below in this regard -\n(i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC):\n(ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC):\n(iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC):\n(iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC):\n33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials\nreceived, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certai…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1, MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…ot\nevidented to be voluntary and that the assessee has not discharged the onus of\nproving the genuineness of the donations. The ld DR placed reliance on various\njudicial precedents as listed below in this regard –\n(i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC):\n(ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC):\n(iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC):\n(iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC):\n64\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. F…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2271/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…t\nevidence d to be voluntary and that the assessee has not discharged the onus of\nproving the genuineness of the donations. The ld DR placed reliance on various\njudicial precedents as listed below in this regard -\n(i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC):\n(ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC):\n(iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC):\n(iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC):\n33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials\nreceived, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certai…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…not\nevidence to be voluntary and that the assessee has not discharged the onus of\nproving the genuineness of the donations. The ld DR placed reliance on various\njudicial precedents as listed below in this regard -\n(i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC):\n(ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC):\n(iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC):\n(iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC):\n33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials\nreceived, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certai…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…ot\nevidented to be voluntary and that the assessee has not discharged the onus of\nproving the genuineness of the donations. The ld DR placed reliance on various\njudicial precedents as listed below in this regard -\n(i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC):\n(ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC):\n(iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC):\n(iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC):\n64\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. F…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1509/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…ot\nevidented to be voluntary and that the assessee has not discharged the onus of\nproving the genuineness of the donations. The ld DR placed reliance on various\njudicial precedents as listed below in this regard -\n(i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC):\n(ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC):\n(iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC):\n(iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC):\n64\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. F…

DYNAMIC DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 10(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 740/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 129Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…rtant and decisive factor/inductive in the nature of trade conducted in the land with business and dealing with purchase and sale of the land. He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of P. M. Mohammed Meerakhan vs. CIT [1979] 73 ITR 735 (SC) and Karanpura Development Company ltd. vs. Cit reported in 44 ITR 362 (SC). 6. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsel of the respective parties, we have gone through the order passed by the lower authorities and the paper books filed by the assessee. The main ground of the assessee is with regard to addition of Rs. 1,59,22,402/- on acco…

SMT. ANARO DEVI,ALWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 341/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69C

…sessee and the manner of disposal may be such that the transaction may be stamped with the character of a trading nature. In this regard, reference may be made to decision by Hon’ble Apex Court in P. M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1969] 73 ITR 735 (SC). 22. Learned AR for the appellant has submitted that intention of the landowner or the assessee and the nature of the land are of much significance in such like cases. 23. In Saarifabibi ‘s case (supra), relied on behalf of the department, the subject land was not cultivated prior to its sale; that the appellant had no intention to bring the…

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

…'s worth where there is a risk of loss as well as chance of gain and these activities may be quite similar to the ordinary business. Hon’ble Courts in the cases Khan Bahadm Ahmed Alladin& Sons v. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 573 (SC), P. Mohd. Meera Khan v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC). Premji Bhimji. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 179 (Cal), CIT v. H. Holck Larsen (1986) 160 1TR 67 (SC) and CIT v. VA.Trivedi (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) have held that it was not possible to evolve any single test or formula which can be applied in determining whether a transaction is adventure in the nature of trade or not. The answer to question must…

ACIT 3(3)(1) MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SIROYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ground nos

ITA 2961/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…pletion method’ and for the year under consideration also the same method was followed. Now, the grievance of the Ld.AO was that the assessee has followed the AS-7 whereas the AS-9 was applicable and considering the order of PM Mohammed Meerkhan vs CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC), the Ld.AO suggested for the percentage of completion method instead of project completion method and second issue was that as per Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)’s guidance note on accounting real estate transactions, once all significant risk and reward are transferred to the seller thereafter act like a contractor and he…

ACIT 3 (3)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SIROYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ground nos

ITA 2960/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…pletion method' and for the year under consideration also the same method was followed. Now, the grievance of the Ld.AO was that the assessee has followed the AS-7 whereas the AS-9 was applicable and considering the order of PM Mohammed Meerkhan vs CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC), the Ld.AO suggested for the percentage of completion method instead of project completion method and second issue was that as per Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)'s guidance note on accounting real estate transactions, once all significant risk and reward are transferred to the seller thereafter act like a contractor and he…

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 254

…e had not obtained physical possession of the shares in question at the relevant time, the assessee was not the owner of the shares in question. the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, [1969] 73 ITR 735 (2002-TIOL-780-SC- IT) and Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, [1968] 68 ITR 573, and that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the said decisions. ++From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that both the Tribunal as wel…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 vs. M/S WIG INVESTMENT

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…ITA 169/2020 Page 1 of 18 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 29.11.2023 Judgment Pronounced on:15.01.2024 + ITA 169/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr Standing Counsel, with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel. versus M/S WIG INVESTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr S. Ganesh, Senior Adv. with Ms Shreya Jain and Mr Gaurav Tanwar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. VENKATARAMANA REDDY KATPALLI , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 1799/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Vs. Sri Venkataramana Reddy Of Income Tax, Katpalli, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Adopk7258H] अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 45(2)Section 54F

…land as the commercial land, dividing the same into plots, allotting numbers thereto and selling the same constitute adventure in the nature of trade and referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735, he concluded that the profit on sale of stock in trade shall be assessed as Page 2 of 8 business income. He, accordingly worked out the same to Rs. 3,01,29,734/- and added it to the income of the assessee. In respect of the plots purchased by the assessee and sold by him, learned Assessing Officer allowed the exemption under section 54F of the Ac…

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5701/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akkhade
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…hence the proviso has no application, Mr. Dave has placed reliance on several decision viz., the decisions in the case of Currimbhoy Ebrahim (1 ITR 341), Shaw Wallace (AIR 1932 PC 138), Masagaon Dock (34 ITR 368), Raja Rameshwar Rao (42 ITR 179), Meera Khan (73 ITR 735), Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp. v/s. Commissioner of Service Tax -I (2014 TIOL 1809 CESTAT MUM) and Murasoli Trust [2016] 156 ITD 761 (Chennai Trib.). All these decisions have no bearing on the issue that arises on the facts of the present case. The following decisions cited, by him are quite relevant, which we shall discuss in brief:…

SHRI.BABULAL,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAD-2(2)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 887/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice-Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Jr. Standing Counsel
Section 54Section 54F

…s of commercial commodities stand on different footing from land. A transaction of purchase of land cannot be assumed without more to be a venture in the nature of trade Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and P.M.Mohammed Meerakhan Vs. (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC) It was also held that land is not generally or ordinarily a trading commodity unlike, for example, manufactured articles that are normally the subject-matter of trade. Land, on the other hand, is often the subject-matter of investment CIT Vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578 (Mad). 12. In cases of purchase and sale of land as laid…

M/S. KOHLI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 410/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 410/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 80, Scindia House, Ward-14(4), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack3430D Assessee By : Sh. G. S. Kohli, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 2(14)Section 40a

…ll be relevant to state here that the CIT (Appeal) to strengthen his order has cited 2cases where the facts are absolutely different to the appellant's case as in cited cases the "business income" is quite apparent. The learned C.I.T. (Appeal) cited the case 73 ITR 735 (65-73) Supreme Court It is related to assessment year 1956-57 or to say it is prior to Income Tax Act, 1961. However, in that case the assessee entered into an agreement for the purchase of land for Rs.6,00,000/- and the payment was to be made within stipulated period of about 2 months. The assessee paid Rs.11,000/- but could not pay the balanci…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3805/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…express provision of the relevant statutes, [see Whimster & Co. vs. IRC (1925) 12 Tax Cases 813 (C. Sess); IRC vs. Cock Rusell & Co. Ltd. (1949) 29 Tax Cases 387 (KB)]. This proposition has been affirmed by this Court in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC). In the said case it has been observed (at p. 743) : 'For that purpose it was the duty of the ITO to find out what profit the business has made according to the treatment of emergency spares in accordance with the revised AS-2 and AS-10 would be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting which under the Act the Revenue is required…

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1),, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 705/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…express provision of the relevant statutes, [see Whimster & Co. vs. IRC (1925) 12 Tax Cases 813 (C. Sess); IRC vs. Cock Rusell & Co. Ltd. (1949) 29 Tax Cases 387 (KB)]. This proposition has been affirmed by this Court in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC). In the said case it has been observed (at p. 743) : 'For that purpose it was the duty of the ITO to find out what profit the business has made according to the treatment of emergency spares in accordance with the revised AS-2 and AS-10 would be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting which under the Act the Revenue is required…

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1) vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2234/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…express provision of the relevant statutes, [see Whimster & Co. vs. IRC (1925) 12 Tax Cases 813 (C. Sess); IRC vs. Cock Rusell & Co. Ltd. (1949) 29 Tax Cases 387 (KB)]. This proposition has been affirmed by this Court in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC). In the said case it has been observed (at p. 743) : 'For that purpose it was the duty of the ITO to find out what profit the business has made according to the treatment of emergency spares in accordance with the revised AS-2 and AS-10 would be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting which under the Act the Revenue is required…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT (73 ITR 735) — Cited in 58 Judgments | BharatTax