How many judgments cite Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT?

281 judgments on BharatTax cite Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (49 ITR 112), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 143(2), Section 147.

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

49 ITR 112Supreme Court of India1963#279 most cited

What is Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT authority for?

An assessee must explain the source of entries in their account books and prove that the sums are not income; the department is not initially required to prove anything. However, the department cannot unreasonably reject a good explanation, thereby converting valid proof into no proof.

281

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT · onus of proof · cash credit · unexplained money · source of funds · high denomination notes · Section 68 · Section 69A · department's burden · unreasonable explanation rejection

Also reported as

2 SCR 552

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 133(6)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 110 section 69d paper company share capital and share premium section 31 section 251(2)creditworthiness of the creditor source of source survey under section 133a section 69b addition u/s 68 section 250(4)

Judgments citing Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…e following case laws : • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) • Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) • Mc.Dowell & Co. Limited (154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jai Vs. Pr. CIT. Finally he held that long term capital gain claimed by the assessee is non-genuine and held that the sam…

Bhagwatiben Vinodkumar Surani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1)., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1309/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

…r is legion, and toward which we may, if only for the sake of completeness of our order, advert to the some of the celebrated decisions by the apex court in the matter: A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanit v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); Durga Prasad More (supra); CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674/26 Taxman 324 (SC); Sumati Dayal (supra); and CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SC) We may further clarify that in proceeding with the matter, we have circumscribed the entire material on record. 4.2…

Gaurav Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 60 (5 ), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ter is legion, and toward which we may, if only the sake of completeness of our order, advert to the some of the celebrated decisions by the apex court in the matter: A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (1958) 34 itr 807 (sc); Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanit Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) Durga Prasad More (supra); CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674/26 Taxman 324 (SC). Surrmti Dayal (supra); and CIT v. P. Mohanakala 120071291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SC) We may further clarify that in proceeding with the matter, we have circumscribed the entire material on record.…

Shailesh Jaiswal, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, - Katni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 166/JAB/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…nd cannot be said to have been satisfactorily explained, validating the application of section 68 in terms of trite law, toward which we may cite some case law: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT v. P. Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) The addition, however, is to be restricted to Rs. 2,79,000, i.e., the aggregate amount of the cash credit…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…f section 68 has been explained and it has been held that for justifying any credits in books of account, the assessee must prove identity, capacity of the creditors and genuineness of creditors. In this context the decision reported in 131 Taxman 391 (2003), 49 ITR 112 (SC), 50 ITR 1 (SC), 98 ITR 337 (SC), 161 Taxman 169 (SC), 53 ITR 623 (SC) and 34 ITR 807 (SC) are relied upon and the ratio of judgements in those cases are applicable to the facts of the case under assessment. Under the circumstances these 4 credits amounting to Rs.38,31,03,071/- found unexplained and treated as undisclosed income of the assesse…

DCIT Circle-1 vs. Rana Papers Ltd

ITA 2184/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

…opies of Share application and copies of Income Tax Return acknowledgment of I.T. Return could not be treated as sufficient evidence to prove genuineness of a credit. Reliance is also placed on Hon’ble SC decision is placed on 57 ITR 532, 53 ITR 623, 50 ITR , 49 ITR 112 35 ITR 416, 34 ITR 807 (All. S.S. decision). Considering all these facts and legal position the share application money received is treated as unexplained and will be added to the income of the assessee. (Addition Rs. 4,28,50,000) Unsecured Loans As per schedule for attached to balance sheet, company’s unsecured loans in the previous year and in t…

Narangs International Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA no

ITA 1383/MUM/2013[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 1383/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year 1994-95) I.T.A. No. 7371/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 1994-95) Narangs International Hotels DCIT SR-27/DCIT Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-36 Ambassador Hotel Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 7549/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 1994-95) DCIT -1(2)(2) Narangs International Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Hotels Pvt. Ltd. M.K. Road Ambassador Hotel Mumbai-400 020. Churchgate Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Responden…

Mrs. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 708/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 51Section 68

…dings, the appellant provided fresh confirmation as also its present whereabouts from authentic record and the broker who mediated the transaction. No exercise was done thereafter by AO. In the words of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee (49 ITR 112) "Before the department rejects such evidence, it must either show an inherent weakness in the explanation or rebut it by putting to the assessee some information or 27 Smt. Renu Sehgal vs DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur evidence which it has in its possession. The department cannot be merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert go…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…tax. it is for him to so either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act In the absence of such proof. the AO is entitled to treat it as a taxable income. In the case of Sreelekha Banerjee 49 ITR 112. the Supreme Court held that when a credit entry appears in the books of account of an assessee in and accounting year, the assessee has a legal obligation to explain the nature and source of such credit. If the assessee offers an explanation about the cash credit, the AO can put the assessee to prove of his explanation. and if the assessee fails…

Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 320/2012 " CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 Delhi " CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 206(2014) DLT 97 (DB)(DEL) " CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 " Seth Kalekhan Md. Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 " M.A. Unneerikutty Vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 " CIT vs. P. Mohankaia (2007) 291 ITR 278 " Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 " Shri Hersh W. Chadha, (Legal heir of Late Sh. W.N. Chadha) Vs. DDIT, Circle-1(1), ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 309…

ACIT, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S R. K. Commercial Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1330/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Advocate & Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act, it is not possible to assume as intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language.” 16. The Apex Court in Shreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) explained that if the explanation given by assessee shows that the receipt is not of income nature, Department cannot "convert good proof into no proof" or otherwise act unreasonably and reject it. It has been held by different courts that the explanation given by the Assessee cannot be rejected arbitrary or capriciously without sufficient gr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 289/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…without any cogent reason. The assessing officer merely disbelieved the explanation/statements given by the assessee and has converted good proof into no proof. Hon’ble Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good “proof into no proof”. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Co Vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of p…

Nitin Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 128/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 127/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Mr Tarun Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6715/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…payments, he would not be entitled to benefit of peak credit. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC); and iii) Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT 49 ITR 112(SC). 10. So far as the decision of the Tribunal in the group cases is concerned, he submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused th…

Shri Ashish Tandon, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54FSection 55

…ITA No.: 1954/Ahd/ 2017 Assessment year: 2013-14 Page 1 of 27 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar VP and Madhumita Roy JM] ITA No.: 1954/Ahd/ 2017 Assessment year: 2013-14 Ashish Tandon …………...…………..Appellant Bungalow No. 3, Green Woods Sevasi Gotri Road, Vadodara [PAN: ABMPT 2819H] Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), Vadodara ……………..…........Respondent Appearances by S N Soparkar, Milin Mehta, Bandish Soparkar and Parin Shah for the appellant Mahesh Shah and MSA Khan for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : November 13, 2018…

ACIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S Rana Papers Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

In the result ground, number four of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3402/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Rana Papers Ltd, Circle-1, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar Pan: Aaacr7902B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 68

…I.T.Act, 1961 as unexplained unsecured loans as the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the loans without appreciating the full facts of the case and by ignoring the judicial pronouncement reported in the following cases:- a. Shree Lekha Banarjee Vs. CIT,49 ITR 112 (SC) b. Ram Lai Agarwal Vs CIT, 280 ITR 547 (Alld) c. ITO Vs. Rai Chand Kothari (HUF) 39TTJ (Tribunal) d. Shanker Inds. Vs. CIT, 114 ITR 689 (Cal) e. Prakash Textiles Agency Vs. CIT, 121 ITR 89 f. C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT, 126 ITR 63 (Cal) 6. The order of the CIT (A) be set aside and that of AO be restored.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that th…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajesh M Shah(HUF), Mumbai

ITA 7105/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7105/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya

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

…rcumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938, Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT(SC) 50 ITR 1 and Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors vs. CIT(SC) 49 ITR 112." 4. The appellant prays that the order of the Learned CIT(A) on the above grounds be set side and that of the AO be restored. 3 I.T.A. No. 7105/Mum/2016 Rajesh M Shah (HUF) 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter or delete any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed…

Ajay Malshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.641/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin M. Furia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, DR

Section 143Section 68

…ss of these loan transactions amounting to Rs. 90 lacs. The AO relied upon following case laws to come to the aforesaid conclusion:- a) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 b) Vasntibai N Shah v. CIT (Bom) 213 ITR 805 c) Sreelekha Banerjee & Oths. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112 d) Cit v. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 e) Roshan De Hatti v. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 Hence additions were made by the AO in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. Similarly interest paid to these three lending parties to the tune of Rs. 7,55,411/- was also disallowed by the AO a…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…e decisions by which, as also by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, settling the law in the matter, we may refer to for the sake of completeness of discussion: Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) [affirming 34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul…