Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad v. CIT

16 ITR 254High Court1948#19351 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 264asection 264block of assetssection 10aasection 10arejection of books of accountsection 145(3)addition u/s 68section 40(a)(ia)section 145unexplained expenditurereason to believe

Judgments citing Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad v. CIT

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…er the Department does not have to locate any particular source [Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) impliedly overruling Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 301 (Pat) and impliedly approving Srinivas Ramkumar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 254 (Pat) and G.M. Chenna Basappa vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 576 (AP) on this point]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO having assessed the income of the assessee on a percentage basis, was also justified in treating the unexplained cash credit as profits from an undisclosed source. Repelling the contention that the entries found in the boo…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…er the Department does not have to locate any particular source [Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) impliedly overruling Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 301 (Pat) and impliedly approving Srinivas Ramkumar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 254 (Pat) and G.M. Chenna Basappa vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 576 (AP) on this point]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO having assessed the income of the assessee on a percentage basis, was also justified in treating the unexplained cash credit as profits from an undisclosed source. Repelling the contention that the entries found in the boo…

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…er the Department does not have to locate any particular source [Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) impliedly overruling Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 301 (Pat) and impliedly approving Srinivas Ramkumar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 254 (Pat) and G.M. Chenna Basappa vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 576 (AP) on this point]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO having assessed the income of the assessee on a percentage basis, was also justified in treating the unexplained cash credit as profits from an undisclosed source. Repelling the contention that the entries found in the boo…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…er the Department does not have to locate any particular source [Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) impliedly overruling Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 301 (Pat) and impliedly approving Srinivas Ramkumar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 254 (Pat) and G.M. Chenna Basappa vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 576 (AP) on this point]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO having assessed the income of the assessee on a percentage basis, was also justified in treating the unexplained cash credit as profits from an undisclosed source. Repelling the contention that the entries found in the boo…

Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad v. CIT (16 ITR 254) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax