How many judgments cite R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT?

95 judgments on BharatTax cite R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT (32 ITR 56), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 68, Section 69A.

R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT

32 ITR 56High Court1957#1208 most cited

What is R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee explains the source of high denomination notes deposited during demonetisation as part of their recorded cash balance, and the explanation is largely supported by the books of accounts, a significant addition as undisclosed income may not be justified.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT · Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. · 32 ITR 56 · Section 68 · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · demonetisation · high denomination notes · unexplained cash balance · burden of proof · undisclosed income · source explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C Section 68 Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115be section 69d preponderance of probability section 69b section 80c interest u/s 234a source of source business expediency creditworthiness of the creditor addition under section 68 section 145(3)colourable device

Judgments citing R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 4282/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…ee in the previous years as well as in current years. Reliance is placed on the following: a) Kailash Jewellery House ITA No. 613/2010 dt. 09.04.2010 (Delhi High Court) b) Sri Ram Tandon (1961) 42 ITR 689 (Allahabad High court) c) Kanpur Steel co. Ltd. (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) d) Agson Global Pvt Ltd ITA No. 3741 3742, 3743, 3744, 3745 & 3746, 5264, 5265, 5266, 5267, 5268 & 5269/Del/2019, cit. 31010.2019 e) AK Lumber Ltd ITA Nos. 8761/Dcl/2019 dated 10.072020 (Delhi Trib) f) M/s. Hirapanna Jewellers ITA No. 253/Viz./2020, dt 12.05.2021 (Vishakhapatnam – Tribunal) g) M/s. Jewells Emporium ITa No.303/JP/2019, 234/1P…

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

ITA 3609/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…d legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however\ncannot take the place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer\nDhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s\nCIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also\nrefer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar\nBuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the\naddition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law.\n4.3In CIT v/s H.S. Builders (P) Ltd 78 DTR 169(Raj.): Tribunal was\njustified in deleting the addition after finding that the ass…

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…icion and his own guess workand it is the settled\nlegal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of\nreality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC)\nalso refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR\n56 (All).Also refer CIT_v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT_v/s Shalimar\nBuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition\nmerely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law.\nTherefore under these facts, circumstances legal position the additions so made m…

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…led legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 17 Sh. Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar. 6. Addition on account of unsecured loan cannot be made u/s 69A: Further the ld. AO has made t…

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).All the addition deserves deletion on this submission alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). Here we would like to submit that while doing a judicious act by a person (here the AO) should…

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…d legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take\nthe place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton\nMills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag),\nKanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai\n291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it\nhas been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was\nnot desirable in the eye of law.\nAlternatively and without prejudice the ld. PCIT has also ignored that if any\nperson received any advance the same will not be t…

KALYANASUNDARAVALLI PREMANANDHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP. WARD 8(2) CHE, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/CHNY/2025[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kalyanasundaravalli Premanandhan, The Ito, 52/A1, Amaravathy Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Chennai-600 106. Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…ting the relevant transactions. Judicial precedents recognizing the concept of household savings or "pin money" maintained by Indian women were also cited, such as:  CIT v. Paramanand Uttamchand [(1984) 146 ITR 430 (Mad.)],  R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT [(1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag.)], and  R. Dalmia (decd.) v. CIT [(1981) 133 ITR 169 (Del.)]. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in haste and under pressure during peak demonetization, provided a letter to the bank manager indicating that the deposited cash was a repayment of a hand loan from a third party. This was done merely to comply with sudden demand…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 5315/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…itrarily Various courts have held that the A.O cannot reject the appellant's explanation arbitrarily. P a g e | 13 DCIT Vs. M/s Shrish Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) Hon'ble Bombay High Court of Nagpur Bench in very old case of Naidu (RBNJ) vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag) held that where the explanation furnished by an assessee about the amount credited is prima facie reasonable, the said explanation cannot be rejected on capricious and arbitrary grounds. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs K.S Kannan Kunhi (1973) 87 ITR 395 (SC) in para 6 of the judgment expressed its displeasure that expl…

ACIT-3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. HARSHIT GARG, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 451/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

…vs. CIT [1981]; Taxman 263 (Kar). 4. Vintha Madhusudan Reddy vs. Asstt. CIT (ITA No.257/BANG/2018. 5. Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thanker vs. ITO [2017] 88 taxman.com 382. 6. Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR (Patna). 7. Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All). 8. Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. vs. DCTT ITA No.1166/AHD/2014. 9. CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujarat High Court) Tax Appeal No.2471 of 2009. 10. R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay HC). 11. Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No.1220/Del/2011 (ITAT Delhi). 12. CIT…

CHIRAG MURDIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 159/JODH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24Section 250

…ed legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held thatthe AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eyes of law. 2.3. Further when the ld. AO was of the view and having information that the assessee has received excess unaccounted rent from the…

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 848/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132aSection 132tSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…ere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt. Ltd. 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 10 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur Kindly refer our WS dated 17.02.2021 filed before ld. AO which is reproduced for reference as under: 1.…

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 2.10 The ld. AO has also added the alleged undisclosed additional charges received by the assesseecompany.In this regards we have t…

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…legation remains a mere allegation unless proved.\nSuspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer\nDhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194\n(Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291\nITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held\nthat the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of\nlaw.\n2.10 The ld. AO has also added the alleged undisclosed additional charges received by\nthe assesseecompany.In this regards we h…

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the cases where the transactions are recorded sec 69A cannot be invoked. 13 In the instant case all the transaction are recorded in the books of accounts, i.e., in cash book, ledger, members ledger, etc. In the case of Kanpur steel; company ltd. vs CIT [1957 32 ITR 56 (All HC)], it stated that, "income from undisclosed sources- burden of proof that the high denomination notes enchased on heir demonetisation and explaining the I.T authorities that it formed part of cash balance of Rs. 34000 tribunal after examination of the accounts holding that only seven notes could form part of that cash balance in the state o…

GAZALA HASSAN CHARIYARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Ito Ward– 8(1)(1) Vs. Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, 124, M E S Marg, Zanda Galli Off, Maharshi Karve Road, Memonwada Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mubmai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aaepc3430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

…009,  ITO vs. Surana Traders (2005) 93 TTJ 875: (2005) 92 ITD 212 Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT,  Smt. Teena Bethala Vs ITO (ITA No. 1383/Bang/2019) dated 28.08.2019,  DCIT vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016,  Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All),  ITO vs. Vishan Lal (ITA No. 634/Lkw/2014) 5 Gazala Hasan Chariyari (AY 2017-18) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. On the issue of reopening, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the case of the assessee was reopened on the allegation of financial transactions leading to accu…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). And in the present case the ld. AO invoked provision of sec. 115BBE merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law and invoking provision of section 69 invalid ignoring the true and correct facts of the case. The provision of s…

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2002[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

SHALINI JAGWAYAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

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

ITA 987/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…legation remains a\nmere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled\nprinciples kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J.\nNaidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also\nrefer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd\n86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion\nwhich was not desirable in the eye of law.\n\nIn the case of St. Wilfred Educational Society vs. Pr. CIT (CENTRAL)18th\nMarch, 2019 (2019) 55 CCH 0633 JaipurTrib, (2019) 1…

OM VINYLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3549/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya - CIT DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…ted during demonetisation period out of accounted cash which is treated as unexplained. In this regard, assessee placed reliance on the following judgements: i. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) ii. Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (ALL.) (HC) iii. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 342 (Delhi - Trib.) iv. ACIT vs. Hirapanna Jewellers [2021] 128 taxmann.com 291 (Visakhapatnam-Trib.) v. ACIT v. Ramlal Jewellers (P.) Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 584 (Mumbai - Trib vi. Balwinder Kumar vs. ITO [2023] 151 taxmann.com 338 (Amritsar Trib.) 6 Om Vinyls Private Ltd…

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5