Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

57 ITR 532Supreme Court of India1965#710 most cited

What is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT authority for?

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT · 57 ITR 532 · not all receipts income · income chargeable to tax · AO cannot reject explanation arbitrarily · probabilities and possibilities · disbelieved not disproved · burden of proof on AO · Section 5 · Section 68 · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 5(2)Section 9Section 147Section 6Section 143(3)Section 5Section 68Section 149(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 5(2)business connectionsection 149(1)creditworthiness of the creditorliable to taxtangible materialsection 34borrowed satisfactionsatisfaction noteassessee in default

Judgments citing Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ief. In case of absence of such material, this Court in clear terms has held the action taken by assessing Authority on such \"reason to believe\" as arbitrary and bad in law.\n\n1. Apex Court judgment in the case of Parimisetti Sethramamma Vs CIT reported in 57 ITR 532 has held as \"By section 3 and 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax.\"\n\n1. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Indo Arab Air Services (2016) 130 DTR 78/ 283 CTR 92 (Delhi) (HC) it w…

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 334/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…33 & 334/Del/2021 7.6 The ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that it is well settled rule of law that, all receipts are not income chargeable to tax and reliance for this proposition was placed on the following judgments: (i) Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT, 57 ITR 532 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. P.V. G. Raju, 101 ITR 465 (SC) 7.7 The ld. Sr. Counsel submits that under misconception of law, it had offered such receipts as income, is making a prayer by this application that, it be permitted to urge such a ground of appeal, which has been resulted on account of subsequent development in the case of M/s Commitment Morality…

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 333/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…33 & 334/Del/2021 7.6 The ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that it is well settled rule of law that, all receipts are not income chargeable to tax and reliance for this proposition was placed on the following judgments: (i) Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT, 57 ITR 532 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. P.V. G. Raju, 101 ITR 465 (SC) 7.7 The ld. Sr. Counsel submits that under misconception of law, it had offered such receipts as income, is making a prayer by this application that, it be permitted to urge such a ground of appeal, which has been resulted on account of subsequent development in the case of M/s Commitment Morality…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…her, that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the income sought to be taxed is within the taxing provisions and there was in fact income, are propositions which are well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of ParimisettiSeetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 which reiterates these propositions. This is very important burden and must be discharged by revenue strictly. There should not be reverse burden on tax payer to prove the negative. 6.3.16 Although the burden of proof is not static, in assessment proceedings- especially in search-related cases the initial onus lies on the appellant. In this case,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…her, that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the income sought to be taxed is within the taxing provisions and there was in fact income, are propositions which are well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of ParimisettiSeetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 which reiterates these propositions. This is very important burden and must be discharged by revenue strictly. There should not be reverse burden on tax payer to prove the negative. 6.3.16 Although the burden of proof is not static, in assessment proceedings- especially in search-related cases the initial onus lies on the appellant. In this case,…

RAMESH SISTLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 45/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: CA Y. V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

…ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'DB-B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री मधुसूदन सावडिया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President AND Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.45/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramesh Sistla Hyderabad PAN: AEAPS7184M (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee by: CA Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की…

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

…tment to prove that it Is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption provided by the Act upon the assesses. (sed Panmisetti Seetharamnariima [1965] 57 ITR 532 at page 536). But, in View of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the S8essee for any previous year, the same may be charged to Income-tax the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, no…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ment to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proof that it is not taxable because it falls within the exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee (See Pafimisetti Seetharamamma [1965] 57 ITR 532 at page 536)”. But sections 68 and 69 relating to cash credits throw the burden of proof on the assessee because in such a case, there is prime facie evidence against the assessee as to the receipt of money in the books of the assessee. The burden of proving that the cash credit is genuine or that receipt is genuine is on the assessee. “16. Though…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ment to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proof that it is not taxable because it falls within the exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee (See Pafimisetti Seetharamamma [1965] 57 ITR 532 at page 536)”. But sections 68 and 69 relating to cash credits throw the burden of proof on the assessee because in such a case, there is prime facie evidence against the assessee as to the receipt of money in the books of the assessee. The burden of proving that the cash credit is genuine or that receipt is genuine is on the assessee. “16. Though…

JAWAHARLAL GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…unt falls within the taxing ambit is on the department and it is incorrect to place the onus of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetty Seetharaman vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) where it was categorically held that the burden lies upon the department to prove that a particular asset is within the taxing provisions. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the AO found that the assessee is a non resident Indian, was incorrect in making addition towards deposits found in foreign bank account maintained with H…

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 464/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…unt falls within the taxing ambit is on the department and it is incorrect to place the onus of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetty Seetharaman vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) where it was categorically held that the burden lies upon the department to prove that a particular asset is within the taxing provisions. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the AO found that the assessee is a non resident Indian, was incorrect in making addition towards deposits found in foreign bank account maintained with H…

NARAINDAS GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 463/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…unt falls within the taxing ambit is on the department and it is incorrect to place the onus of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetty Seetharaman vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) where it was categorically held that the burden lies upon the department to prove that a particular asset is within the taxing provisions. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the AO found that the assessee is a non resident Indian, was incorrect in making addition towards deposits found in foreign bank account maintained with H…

PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI,DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 449/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…unt falls within the taxing ambit is on the department and it is incorrect to place the onus of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetty Seetharaman vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) where it was categorically held that the burden lies upon the department to prove that a particular asset is within the taxing provisions. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the AO found that the assessee is a non resident Indian, was incorrect in making addition towards deposits found in foreign bank account maintained with H…

SHIVNARAYAN RAJPUT,HOSHANGABAD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ITARSI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, ITARSI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 771/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivnarayan Rajput, Ito, Ward-1, बनाम/ House No.33

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253

…ts of the case as the Income Tax Act does not work on the lines that whatever is cash/deposit received by a person must be regarded as income and shall be liable to tax and the same is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Parimisetti Sethramamma Vs CIT, 57 ITR 532. Yet, in the case the actions of the learned AO implies that any source of deposit in the account of Assessee was treated as cash credit and was charged for tax in assumption or presumption, without making any further investigation or inquiry to bring on record any report of competent authority. 4. The Appellant reserves the right to, add, amend o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KASTHOORI RAJA DHANUSH, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department by Assessee by सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Da…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KASTHOORI RAJA DHANUSH, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 v. The ACIT, Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Central Circle-2(2), Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Chennai. Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KASTHOORI RAJA DHANUSH, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 v. The ACIT, Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Central Circle-2(2), Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Chennai. Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KASTHOORI RAJA DHANUSH, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 v. The ACIT, Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Central Circle-2(2), Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Chennai. Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600…

ITO, WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUN-NEW CREATIONS AND MARKETIGN PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…of Rs.3,83,10,500/- (in the case of 'Sun- New') and Rs.1,45,00,000/- in the case of 'PPR'), it comes out that he liberally applied the concepts of probabilities and possibilities which is not permitted under the law. Parimisetti Seetharamammav vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Various explanations made by the appellant company during the assessment/appellate proceedings are not absurd and had been rejected without making any proper enquiry. The AO merely disbelieved but not disproved the facts stated by the appellant company in respect of cash sales. It is settled law that an explanation prima facie reasonable can…

SHRI VEERSHAIV CO. OP. BANK LTD.,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 175/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ent the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it be…

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532) — Cited in 142 Judgments | BharatTax