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.

How many judgments cite Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT?

142 judgments on BharatTax cite Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 5(2), Section 9, Section 147, Section 6, Section 143(3), Section 5.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532)

Ruby Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2875/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2875 to 2881/DEL/2022 A.Yrs.: 2013-14 to 2019-20 RUBY SINGH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, R-543, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ANAPS3827J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, CA Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. Commiss…

Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bikaner

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

ITA 221/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2010-11 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/O Ram Income Tax Officer, Swaroop, Chak-13 Kyd Vs Ward-1(4), Bikaner Khajuwala, Bikaner-3334023 Pan: Brkpk2021B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.05.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 21.11.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- 1. The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal Against The Law & Without Any Application Of Mind, Therefore, Is Liable For Quash. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ew.” 8.1 Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the department cannot merely reject explanation filed by the assessee. 10 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs Commissioner of Income-Tax 57 ITR 532 (SC) has held as under:- “In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision. The appellant admitted that she had received jewellery and diverse sums of money from Sita Devi and she claimed these gifts made out of love and affection. The case of the…

Iexcel Community Foundation, Pune vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

ITA 506/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 506/Pun/2023 Iexcel Community Foundation, Row House, C 704, 5 Gardens Society, Rahatani, Aundh Camp S.O., Pune – 411 027 Pan: Aagci4381R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Kishore B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali ; This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Refusal To Grant Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune [‘Cit(E)’ Hereinafter] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2022- 23/ 1050231926(1) Dt. 28/02/2023. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Contentions Of Both The Parties; & Subject To The Provisions Of Rule 18 Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [‘Itat- Rules’ Hereinafter] Perused The Material Placed On Records, Case Laws Relied Upon By The Appellant As Well The Respondent & Duly Considered The Facts Of

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

…97 (89) ELT 16(SC), that while discharging the onus for proving any claim, the claimant fails to adduce or led any evidence, the onus stands not discharged, thus the claim fails. This ratio was also reiterated in ‘Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs CIT’ reported in 57 ITR 532 holding that, the claimant must discharge the burden of proof and its failure shall not reverse the burden on other party to prove the negative. 5.6 In the extant appeal we note that, the burden of proving the activities are genuine was on the appellant assessee, which it has failed to prove by adducing cogent evidences to the satisfaction of the…

Nemajirao Dharerao Deshmuk, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Solapur.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/PUN/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.459/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nemajirao Dharerao Deshmuk, The Income Tax Officer, At-Post Malkavathe, South Vs Solapur. Solapur, Solapur – 413001. Pan: Akxpd 0754 D Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre[Ld.Cit(A)] Order Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 17.02.2023 Emanating From The Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 07.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld.Ito (Cib) Has Carried Out The Asst U/S 144(1) Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio, Null & Void. The Same May Please Be Annulled. Nemajirao Dharerao Deshmukh [A]

Section 144Section 144(1)Section 148Section 250

…on record any positive evidence to rebut the assessee’s claim. Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to prove that the source of cash deposits is not agricultural income but otherwise. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parimisetti Seetharmamma Vs. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC) has held as under : Quote “By sections 3 and 4 the Act imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within…

DCIT-CC 5(2), Central Range 5, Mumbai vs. M/S Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 652/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ent 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 exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seetharamamma [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 assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as 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…

Farha S. Kadri, Bilimora vs. ITO, Ward-2, Navsari

In the result, the original ground No

ITA 331/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…he following case laws: (i) Amrik Singh Vs ITO 159 ITO 329 (Asr) (ii) Praveen Kumar Jain Vs ITO 1331/D/2015 dated 22/01/2015 (iii) Munni Devi ITA No. 3534/Del/2014 dated 15/09/2016 ITA 331/Srt/2019 Farha S Kadri Vs ITO (iv) Parmitti Setti Setharamamma Vs CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC) 9. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the cash deposit of Rs. 2,78,585/- on 02/06/2009 cannot be accepted as the deposit out of opening cash in hand as the assessee herself has withdrawn Rs. 21,000/- on 02/05/2009 which clearly shows that the assesse…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ce that the receipt is assessable to income-tax on the ground that the assessee has failed to lead all the evidences in support of his contention that it is not within the taxing provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 held that where a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the AO to prove that it is within the 45 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises taxing provision. Where, however, the receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption provided by t…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ce that the receipt is assessable to income-tax on the ground that the assessee has failed to lead all the evidences in support of his contention that it is not within the taxing provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 held that where a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the AO to prove that it is within the 45 ITA. 462& 463/MUM/2019 AY 2010-11 M/s Darshan Enterprises taxing provision. Where, however, the receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption provided by t…

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

ITA 1605/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.1605/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Atul Modi, v. ACIT, Circle-29(1), 22, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi. Siri Fort Road, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AMDPM1864F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 04 01 2023 Date of pronouncement: 04 01 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-X…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No.E-26, Circle 3(3)(2) 7th Floor, E-48, Room No.1607, 16 th Venus Apartments Floor, Dr. R.G. Thadani Marg, Vs. Air India Building Sea Face (South), Nariman Point Worli, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPM7278D CO No. 155/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 494/Mum/2021 A.Y.2006-07) CO No. 156/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 A.Y.2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No. E-…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No.E-26, Circle 3(3)(2) 7th Floor, E-48, Room No.1607, 16 th Venus Apartments Floor, Dr. R.G. Thadani Marg, Vs. Air India Building Sea Face (South), Nariman Point Worli, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPM7278D CO No. 155/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 494/Mum/2021 A.Y.2006-07) CO No. 156/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 A.Y.2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No. E-…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No.E-26, Circle 3(3)(2) 7th Floor, E-48, Room No.1607, 16 th Venus Apartments Floor, Dr. R.G. Thadani Marg, Vs. Air India Building Sea Face (South), Nariman Point Worli, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPM7278D CO No. 155/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 494/Mum/2021 A.Y.2006-07) CO No. 156/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 A.Y.2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No. E-…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No.E-26, Circle 3(3)(2) 7th Floor, E-48, Room No.1607, 16 th Venus Apartments Floor, Dr. R.G. Thadani Marg, Vs. Air India Building Sea Face (South), Nariman Point Worli, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADPM7278D CO No. 155/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 494/Mum/2021 A.Y.2006-07) CO No. 156/Mum/2021 (Arising in ITA No. 493/Mum/2021 A.Y.2007-08) Manish Vijay Mehta The DCIT Flat No. E-…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…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 Parimisetti 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 prima 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. Thoug…

Shri Sejalbhai G. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Surat

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

ITA 971/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.971/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Sejalbhai G. Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, 225, Khodiyar Nagar Soceity, Gandhi Bardoli. Road, Bardoli, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apdpp9316C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sapneth Sheth, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Surat, In Appeal No. Cas-I/424/2014-15 Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sapneth Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54BSection 54F

…Act. However, considering the above facts, we note that these basic conditions have 971/AHD/2016/AY. 2012-13 Sejal G. Patel not been examined by the assessing officer in right perspective. Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma [1965] 57 ITR 532 at page 536, held as follows: "It is no doubt true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department 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 exemption provided by the Act li…

Shri Kirodi Mal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 883/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Javed Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…eys of assessee itself Held. yes - Whether in order to fasten liability on assessee by including such credits as its incomes from unexplained sources, a nexus has to be established by revenue that sources of creditors' deposit flow from assessee - Held, yes. 57 ITR 532 (SC) P. Seetharamamma 87 ITR 349 (SC) Daulat Ram Rawatmull 19 Shri Kirodi Mal vs. ITO It was held that the fact, that as assessee was not able to satisfy the Authority as to the source of the source, from which the creditor of assessee derive the money would not justify the addition being made in respect of such credit in the hands of assessee C…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…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 Parimisetti 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 prima 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. Thoug…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…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 Parimisetti 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 prima 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. Thoug…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…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 Parimisetti 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 prima 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. Thoug…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…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 Parimisetti 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 prima 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. Thoug…

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

What is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

Ruby Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bikaner

Iexcel Community Foundation, Pune vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

Nemajirao Dharerao Deshmuk, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Solapur.

DCIT-CC 5(2), Central Range 5, Mumbai vs. M/S Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

Farha S. Kadri, Bilimora vs. ITO, Ward-2, Navsari

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

Shri Sejalbhai G. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Surat

Shri Kirodi Mal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur