SUNDAR LAL JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE

Q: How many judgments cite SUNDAR LAL JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite SUNDAR LAL JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE (117 ITR 316), spanning 2016 to 2025.

117 ITR 316High Court1979#9316 most cited

What is SUNDAR LAL JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to add to the income of the assessee any amount shown as a liability in the books of account if it is found to be bogus and the assessee offers no plausible explanation.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sundar Lal Jain v CIT · 117 ITR 316 · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained credit · bogus liability · addition to income · onus on assessee · explanation of credit

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry mere change of opinion malabar industrial child section 115b change of opinion erroneous and prejudicial section 115bb limited scrutiny

Judgments citing SUNDAR LAL JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSOURCE

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Mohd Rizwan, Delhi

ITA 3535/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 80C

…assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 and the decisions of the Mumbai and Allahabad High Courts reported in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 and SundarLal Jain v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 316, respectively, contended, that Section 68 of the Act can be invoked only, when, the books of account of the assessee show the cash entry and not otherwise. 5. We are afraid, such a narrow and restricted interpretation of the provisions, contained in Section 68 was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, cannot be accepted. If the…

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…b & Haryana reported at 310 ITR 75 as submitted by the AR in his support buttresses the stand of this office that when the assessee offers no explanation about a credit the same has to be treated as deemed income u/s 68. The judgments of Allahabad High Court (117 ITR 316), Punjab & Haryana High Court (367 ITR 281) and Ahmedabad Tribunal Bench (ITA No. 2 of 2013) have also been quoted by the AR in support of his case. The assessee is supposed to explain the nature of credits in the capital account of the firm. The assessee cannot shift the onus directly to the partners of the firm to avoid the due process of law.…

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…& Haryana reported at 310 ITR 75 as submitted by the AR in his support buttresses the stand of this office that when the assessee offers no explanation about a credit the same has to be treated as deemed income u/s 68. The judgments of Allahabad High Court (117 ITR 316), Punjab & Haryana High Court (367 ITR 281) and Ahmedabad Tribunal (ITA No. 2 of 2013) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as those relate to introduction of unexplained credit by the partners of a firm and the case being dealt now relates to a proprietorship. POWERS OF CIT(A) The AR has also questioned the powers of CIT(A) to mod…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

DCIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Edesk Services Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7113/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7113/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 6(2)(2) M/S. Edesk Services Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-A, Lalwani Indl. Estate M.K Road, Churchgate, 14, G.D. Ambekar Road, V. Mumbai 400020 Wadala, Mumbai 400031 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcb5087H

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…earing for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 and the decisions of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 1 and Sundar Lal Jain v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 316, respectively, contended, that section 68 of the Act can be invoked only, when, the books of account of the assessee show the cash entry and not otherwise. 4. We are afraid, such a narrow and restricted interpretation of the provisions, contained in section 68 was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, cannot be accepted. If the…

Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore vs. The ITO 2(4), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 220/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)

…ssessee placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Baladin Ram v. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 427 and the decisions of the Mumbai and Allahabad High Courts reported in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 and Sundar Lal Jain v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 316, respectively, contended, that section 68 of the Act can be invoked only, when, the books of account of the assessee show the cash entry and not otherwise. We are afraid, such a narrow and restricted interpretation of the provisions, contained in Section 68 was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, cannot be accepted. If the lia…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…pearing for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baladin Ram v. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 427 and the decisions of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 671 and Sundar Lal Jain v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 316, respectively, contended, that section 68 of the Act can be invoked only, when, the books of account of the assessee show the cash entry and not otherwise. 4. We are afraid, such a narrow and restricted interpretation of the provisions, contained in section 68 was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, cannot be accepted. If the…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Calcutta High Court in J.P. Investment Co. vs. CIT [206 ITR 718], decision of Cochin Tribunal in ACIT vs. Kerla Transport Company [51 ITD 405] and the decision of Allahabad High Court in Sundarlal Jain vs. CIT [117 ITR 316]. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of Pr. Commissioner and argued that the AO has not made any enquiry in respect of Capital gain claimed by the assessee. There is no reference in the assessment order about the Gain on agricultural land, thus the order passed by AO is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the inte…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Narayan International, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is jettisoned

ITA 859/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…uld only have been made in the hands of the partner and not the assessee. In support of this contention, the ld. AR has relied on various decisions including the oft quoted judgment of the Allabahad Hon'ble High Court in the SunderLal Jain Vs. CIT reported in 117 ITR 316 [All]. 5 6. On careful consideration of the above from the first appellate order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by observing that the assessee had explained the sources to be out of cash withdrawn by the partners from their bank accounts and out of regular cash in hand. The said contention of the assessee was suppor…