Sudhakaran (C. K.) v. ITO

279 ITR 533High Court2005#24173 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Sudhakaran (C. K.) v. ITO

The Income-Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh Jagjit Singh S/O. Sh. Amrik Singh, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 363/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 363/(Asr)/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)

Section 143(3)

…t be, if the assessee is indeed, as claimed, a man of no means? Though circumstantial evidence constitutes a good ground for inference as to ownership of an asset, i.e., of belonging to the assessee, or investment therein by him (C.K. Sudhakaran v. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 533 (Ker)), the other, overwhelming inference that arises is of the assessee being, on the contrary, a front man for others. The money, after all, could directly have exchanged hands between the owner and the Vendees. The amount disclosed as salary income could well be the commission income allowed to him for being an attorney, or for acting as a con…

Rheema Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, except for A

ITA 4163/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292

…proof to establish the existence of money (and/or payment) u/s. 69A is on the Revenue, but the same can be discharged by it by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference toward the same can be drawn (C. K. Sudhakaran vs. ITO [2005] 279 ITR 533 (Ker)). We, accordingly, find no merit in the assessee’s case, and uphold that of the Revenue. This also decides grounds 4, 6, 5 and 10 for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2007-08 respectively. 24. Vide her Ground 5, the assessee disputes an addition for Rs.6,82,500/-. The assessee’s savings bank with ABN Amro Bank (# 949548), which was found to have a balance…

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 153A

…of that there is unexplained money, investment, etc. is on the Revenue. The same, however, can be discharged by it by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference toward the same can be drawn (refer: Sudhakaran (C. K.) vs. ITO [2001] 279 ITR 533 (Ker)). The assessee is required to disprove the said document, and the logical inference/s that flows there-from. The assessee has, however, produced before us the copy of the report (dated 30.10.2007) submitted by UBS AG, Zurich to Switzerland National Bank, claiming it to have been since forwarded to ED, as also patent from the UB’s letter dat…