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#1195 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 366,339 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

Krishna Hiren Gujarati, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 3(2)(4), Surat

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

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

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

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

…t is not warranted, relied on the following decisions: (1) Narendra G. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (pat) (6) R.S. Diamond (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum Trib) On the wrong invocation/application of Section 115BBE of the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions: (7) J.K. Choksi Vs ACIT Tax Appeal No. 149 of 2003 (Guj) (8) Green Associates V…

Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

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

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

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

…. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) (ii) Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay)(HC) (iii) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) (HC) ITA.246/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya (iv) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC) (v) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (ALL.) (HC) It is submitted that the assessee receives rent income and the assessee has not got any other source of income and the assessees has always earned rent income only and has always shown the same in the return of income. Therefore, the amount deposited in the bank account is req…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 6(1)(2) v. M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, BussaUdyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCB1291J (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No. 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT(A) 407, 4th Floor Room No. 401, 4th Floor Udyog Bhavan C-Block, Civic Center Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Delhi Mumbai -…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground No

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

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

Section 254(1)

…(2) ITO Vs Ashwin d. Menta Tax Appeal No. 386 of 2000 (3) Narendra g. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (4) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (5) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (6) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (all) (7) Anantpur Kalpana Vs ITO (2022) 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bang Trib) (8) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs CIT 287 ITR 0547 (SC) (9) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) 6 Jitendra Nemichand Gupta Vs ITO (10) Naliniknat Ambalal Mody Vs CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC) (11) CIT Vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC) (12) CIT Vs Shilpa Dyeing & Printing…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

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

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

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…f the assessee has relied upon the following case laws: (1) Narendra G Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat) (6) CIT Vs Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (7) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 0619 (Kar) (8) Vinatha Madhusudan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 0151 (Mum Trib) (9) R.S. Diamonds India (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum-Trib) 8 Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor Vs ITO (…

ITO, Ncw - 3 (4), Chennai vs. Ms. Kavitha Siddareddy, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Income Tax Officer, Ms.Kavithasiddareddy, Non-Corporate Ward-3(4), No.7/1, Surabhi, Chennai. Sriram Nagar, North Street, Opp. To Frontline Eye Hospital, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aeppk 0880 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit. : Assessee By Mr.D.Anand, Adv : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha.G:

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…capricious or arbitrary grounds or mere suspicious and irrelevant considerations, as held in the following decisions among others. Naidu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag.), LajwantiSial v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 228 (Nag.), and Kanpur Steel Company Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.) Vide the above cases, it was held that the presumptions and hypotheticalobservations made by the AO for making the impugned addition, were extraneous, irrelevant and opposed to the facts obtaining from the record and the fate of the appellant could not be decided by the AO on mere surmises or probabilities which appears strongly in the insta…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

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

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

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

…Assessee produced details of withdrawals for past 7 years, and claimed the amount encashed on demonetization as to be out of savings from such withdrawals. Such an explanation cannot be rejected by AO." xiii) In the case of Kanpur Steel CO. Ltd v CIT [1957] [32 ITR 56 (AM) was held that, "High Denomination currency notes could be stored more easily and, at the time of accounting, they would have facilitated counting. Since the balance was increasing steadily, the assessee might not have felt if necessary to keep the balance in currency notes of low denomination. Such an explanation by assessee is not an unreason…

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Joydeb Kundu, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…on various decisions for the proposition that no adverse inference can be drawn in case of unverifiable sales if proper books are maintained. I find the decisions referred to in the submissions viz., Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1957] 32 ITR 56 (ALL.), CIT v Kailash Jewellery House, ITA No. 613/2010 (Delhi High Court) decision dtd. 09.04.2010 and CIT V. Vishal 4 AY: 2017-18 Joydeb Kundu Exports Overseas Ltd., Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 (Gujarat High Court), decision dtd. 03.07.2012 applies to the appellant's case. 5.4.3 It is further observed that the appellant during the relevant year…

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

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

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

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

…Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following case law:  Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom)  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat)  Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All)  Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)  Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat)  CIT vs. Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del)  Atish Singla Vs Income Tax Officer [ITA No.1185/Del/2021 dated 06.04.2022  Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 115 taxmann.com 342 (Del.Trib)  Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s Hirapanna Jewellers [ITA No.253/Viz/2020 dated 12.05.2021]…

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

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

…om the material placed before him which is relevant for the purpose. 4.18.ivThe Apex Court in the Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (supra) approvingly noted the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 and summarised the findings in the following words: “(i) that the burden of proof lay upon the Department to prove that the sum of Rs. 32,000 represented suppressed income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, and the burden was not on the assessee to prove how it had received these high denomination currency notes; for, until the Demonetisatio…

H. N. Agri Service Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 94/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 32 ITR 56 may also be noted in this context. The assessee there encashed 32 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each on January 12, 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946, came into force, and when the Income-tax Officer called upon it to explain how these currency notes came into its possession, the assessee claimed that the no…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu vs. M/S Hn Agri Serve Private Limited, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 150/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1324/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal

Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

…ITA Nos. 132 to1324/Mum/2022 & C.O. 117 to 120/Mum/2022 1 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1321 to 1324/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2013-14 & 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s Jinesh Ashwinkumar Income Tax-3(3)(1) Matalia, Adarsh Classic Room No. 668, Aaykar A-302, Adarsh Vihar, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off Marve Road Malad (W) Churchgate, Mumbai 400064 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AGIPM8067F Appellan…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1)., Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwingkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1321/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal

Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…fy its being rejected as unreasonable. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” 11) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) opined as under: Case Law paper Book page 217-219 “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of ₹ 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has be…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ble. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” 38 Shri Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur. 11) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) opined as under: Case Law paper Book page 217-219 “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of ₹ 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has be…

Jugal Kishore Parwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/JPR/2022[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 1986-87

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273(2)(b)Section 282

…is settled principle of law that an allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of the reality. We rely- Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills, 26 ITR 775 (SC); R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT, 29 ITR 194 (Nag); Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 32 ITR 56 (All) and CIT v. Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36 (Del). 1.23 The finding of learned CIT(A) that affidavit is not notarized is perverse- As submitted here in above, the learned CIT(A) had suo moto issued a notice dated 04.05.2022 on assumption and presumptions that there is delay of 21 years and 179 days as per Form No. 35. In response thereto, the appellan…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

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

…ify its being rejected as unreasonable. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” 12) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)opined as under:(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 217-219) “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of ₹ 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has…

DCIT, Circle-2, Trichy vs. M/S. Mc Hospital, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

ITA 11/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…have been similarly decided by the High Court in favour of the assessee. 13 ITA 11/Chny/2021 & CO 6/Chny/2022 M/s. M. C. Hospital AY 2017-18 22. A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in in Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax, (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) may also be noted in this context. The assessee there encashed 32 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each on January 12, 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, came into force, and when the Income-tax Officer called upon it to explain how these currency notes came into its possession, the assessee claimed that…