← All Phrases

“Section 66(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 66Section 66(2)35 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 66(2) is CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (66 ITR 710), cited in 93 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 66(2)

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.
66 ITR 710 · 1967 · Supreme Court
93
citing judgments

Income tax law intends to avoid double taxation, and where an item is brought to tax in one form, appropriate relief or adjustment should be provided to prevent its taxation again in another form. This principle is applicable when considering government grants or subsidies included in income and their impact on the actual cost of assets for depreciation.

T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT
66 ITR 465 · 1967 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

Interest received under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for delayed or enhanced compensation, is a revenue receipt and is taxable under the Income Tax Act.

KNC Chandrashekhar v. ACIT SumatiDayal
66 TTJ 355 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

A cash credit can be assessed even if the transaction was conducted through a cheque, as mere proof of identity or cheque payment is insufficient to establish the creditor's creditworthiness and the genuineness of the credit.

66 (Cal) 11. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
57 Taxmann.com 120 · 2015 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Loans or advances given by a company to shareholders are not deemed dividends under section 2(22)(e) if they are given in return for an advantage conferred on the company, such as being for business purposes like the purchase of an asset. This also applies if the payment is not out of accumulated profits or is a trade advance made as consideration for goods received or asset purchase.

Judgments citing Section 66(2)

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case. ……………… The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs.20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case. ……………… The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case. ……………. The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), application expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there

Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

receipt from business. It is unnecessary to pursue this matter further, as this is not one of the questions referred under section 66(2). 11.7 While pursuing the assessment order, I find that the AO holds cash sales/service income as unexplained due to various reasons given

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271A

same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case. The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2). expressed the view that because the amount of Rs.20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case. ………………….. The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the vi that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT the books of account

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case. ………………….. The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the vi that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT the books of account

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shri Renukamata Multi-State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd., Ahamednagar

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

facts in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd (supra), the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 expressly permits loan to non- members under section 66(2) on the security of his deposit. The said section reads as follows:- “66. Restriction on loans.—(1) A multi-State co-operative society, other

Shri Renukamata Multi-State Co-Operative Urban Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

facts in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd (supra), the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 expressly permits loan to non- members under section 66(2) on the security of his deposit. The said section reads as follows:-"66. Restriction on loans.—(1) A multi-State co-operative society, other

M/S Renukamata Multi State Co-Op. Urban Creditn Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

facts in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd (supra), the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 expressly permits loan to non- members under section 66(2) on the security of his deposit. The said section reads as follows:- “66. Restriction on loans.—(1) A multi-State co-operative society, other

M/S Renukamata Multi State Co-Op. Urban Creditn Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

Vishwanath Prasad on 1 August, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 72 ITR 194 SC “9. The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

Vishwanath Prasad on 1 August, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 72 ITR 194 SC “9. The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh