Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.195

Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 195 (T ax on income referred to in sections 102 to 106) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 195 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 115BBE is CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192), cited in 2,664 of the 8,662 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115BBE

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
454 ITR 312 · 2023 · High Court
580
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

Judgments on Section 115BBE

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 472/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 471/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 470/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 469/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 468/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 467/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 466/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

Dinesh Kumar Dixit, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 167/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 68