Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra

320 ITR 1Reported decision2010#9174 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 68

Issues it is cited on

substance over formcolourable devicemere change of opinionpenny stocksection 10(38)tangible materialchange of opinionreason to believeaccommodation entrygenuineness of the transactionescapement of incomelong term capital gain

Judgments citing Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1826/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…eing devoid of merit in the light of the surrounding circumstances. 4.3.7 Further,considering the tax evasion in the instant case, it is pertinent to refer to ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of RajendranChingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra (320 ITR 1), in which the Hon‟ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country. Further, the ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell Vs CTO (154 ITR 148) is also relied upon. In this land mark decision, the Hon‟ble Apex Court noted with concern the…

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1823/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…eing devoid of merit in the light of the surrounding circumstances. 4.3.7 Further,considering the tax evasion in the instant case, it is pertinent to refer to ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of RajendranChingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra (320 ITR 1), in which the Hon‟ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country. Further, the ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell Vs CTO (154 ITR 148) is also relied upon. In this land mark decision, the Hon‟ble Apex Court noted with concern the…

KISHOR JETHALAL MORBIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 250Section 51

…ecedent of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 44 ITR 362. 4.3.8 Further, considering the tax evasion in the instant case, it is pertinent to refer to ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra (320 ITR 1), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country. Further, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell Vs CTO (154 ITR 148) is also relied upon. In this land mark decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with concern the…

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

ITA 2016/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ecedent of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 44 ITR 362. 5.3.6 Further, considering the tax evasion in the instant case, it is pertinent to refer to ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra (320 ITR 1), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country. Further, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell Vs CTO (154 ITR 148) is also relied upon. In this land mark decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with concern the…

M/S SHAH TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5564/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. Shah Traders, Dw-6251, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, Bandra East Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabfs6536J V/S Dcit, Circle – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri Amit JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Shah Traders, DW-6251, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, Bandra East Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant PAN : AABFS6536J v/s DCIT, Circle – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012 Assessee by : Shri Amit Jhaveri Shri Dharmil Jhaveri Revenue by : Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 02/01/2025 Date of Order - 07/01/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has f…

WINNER TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2189/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2189/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Winner Tradecom Pvt. Limited,……..…………Appellant 2/6, Sarat Bose Road, Suite-308, Central Plaza, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aabcw0321N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer, ……………………………...Respondent Assessment Unit, Ward-6(2), Income Tax Department, Nfac, Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 68

…ings, the ld. CIT(Appeals) mentioned in his order that “burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the transaction. Ld. CIT(Appeals) relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendran Chingaravelu -vs.- R.K. Mishra reported in 320 ITR 1, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. 8. In the present case on hand, the main contention of the assessee is that the ld.…

SHAH SANDEEP ANANTKUMAR HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO-32(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4628/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…case is similar to the case of Bimalchand Jain brought out supra. 5.3.7 Further, considering the tax evasion in the instant case, it is pertinent to refer to ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra (320 ITR 1), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country. Further, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell Vs CTO (154 ITR 148) is also relied upon. In this land mark decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with concern the…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

PRAKASH V SANGHVI vs. MR RAMESH G

In the result, petition is allowed in part

WP/8423/2012HC Karnataka20 Mar 2013

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 131Section 131(1)(a)Section 132Section 54

…tement which the IT Act authorizes and places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU VS. R.K.MISHRA, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.1. Learned counsel 1 (2010) 320 ITR 1 6 points to paragraphs 8, 9, 10 & 11, in support of his submission. 6. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to extract Sec.131(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, which reads thus: SEC.131(1)(a) DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION: “131(1) The Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appea…