1. CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 0067 2. CIT v. Ms. Mayawati

45 SOT 231Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#12850 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 44aa section 44a section 44ad section 44 rule 46a unexplained cash credit section 68 undisclosed income section 142(1)section 148 section 147 section 14

Judgments citing 1. CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 0067 2. CIT v. Ms. Mayawati

BHAVANJI JUGAJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 974/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…re is no legal scope to invoke the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 0067 2. CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati (2011) 338 ITR 563 (Del) 3. Smt. Madhu Raitani vs. ACIT (2011) 45 SOT 231 (Gauhati) 4. Mehul V. Vyas vs. ITO (2017) 80 taxmann.com 311 (Mumbai -Tribunal) 5. Babbal Bhatia vs. ITO (ITA No.5430 & 5432/Del/2011) 6. Narendra Chandubhai vs. ITO (ITA No.103/Ahd/2019) 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that Section 68 of the Act comes into picture where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any p…

ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…the assessee w.r.t. cash deposit of Rs. 21,51,200/- made by the assessee in his bank account maintained with IDBI Bank. The ld. counsel for the assesssee relied upon the following decisions : a) ITAT , Gauhati in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani v. ACIT, (2011) 45 SOT 231(Gau. TM) I.T.A No. 200/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 8 Anish Rajnikant Shah v. ITO b) ITAT, Raipur in the case of Kuldeep Jiwan Mahant v. ITO (2023) 157 taxmann.com 532(Raipur) c) Judgment and order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bahichand N Gandhi v. CIT, (1982) 11 Taxman 52(Bom.) d) ITAT, Mumbai(SMC) in the case of Smt. Manasi Ma…

SANTOSH DNYANESHWAR CHAVAN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1061/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143Section 24Section 250Section 68

…n this account itself the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. I hold so." We further find that a similar view had also been arrived at in a 'third member' decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 10 taxmann.com 206/45 SOT 231 (Gau.) (TM), as well as by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610/143 ITD 686 (Luck. - Trib.). Thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts of the case read in light of the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the A.O in respect of the cash de…

SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 232/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Mohanty, DR

Section 68Section 80C

….R. further submitted that in this case section 68 of the Act is not attracted at all. He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Baladin Ram, vs CIT, 71 ITR 427 (SC) ii) Anandram Raitani vs CIT, 223 ITR 544 (Gau) iii) Smt. Madhu Raitani vs ACIT, 45 SOT 231 (Gau)™ iv) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitkar vs ITO, 73 Taxman.com 68. v) Mehul vs Vyas vs ITO, 80 Taxman.com 311 vi) Amitabh Bansal vs ITO, 175 ITD 401 (Del) vii) CIT vs Bhaichand H Gandhi, (1983) 53 company cases 400 (Bom) 10. Ld DR submitted that the assessee has failed miserably to furnish necessary documents either before the AO or before the ld CI…

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 76/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…nn.com 68 (Mumbai) order dated 12.08.2016 - Para 9 ii. Bhaichand N Gandhi [1982] 1411TR 67 (Born) iii. Rajshibhai Meramanbhai Oderdra - ITA No. 1019 to 1023/Rjt/2010 - Hon'ble Rajkot Bench of ITAT - order dated 14.12.2012 - Para 8.3 iv. Madhu Raitani - [2011] 45 SOT 231 - Hon'ble Gauhati Bench of ITAT (TM) - 07.10.2010 v.Taj Borewells - [2007] 291 ITR 232 - Hon'ble Madras High Court - dated 02.04.2007 - followed the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ananthram Veerasinghaiah & Co [1980] 123 ITR 457 dated 15.04.1981. vi. Hon'ble Delhi Bench (SMC) of ITAT in the case of Amitabh Bansal- [2019] 102 taxmann…

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 75/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

ANWARALI B. KARACHIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1445/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Anwarali B. Karachiwala, Ito-24(1)(2) A-202, Siddhi Chs, Erstwhile Ito-17(1)(3) बिधम/ Kalyan Complex, Yari Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai- 400061 Mumbai- 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…m/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 Shri Anwarali B. Karachiwala Vs. ITO-24(1)(2) cash deposits appearing in his bank account. The ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the following orders of the Tribunal: (i) Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT, Circle 3 (2011) 45 SOT 231 (Gau) (TM) (ii) Smt. Dipikadevi Todi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Thane (ITA No. 189/Mum/2008, dated 29.07.2011) (Mum) The ld. A.R further submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid concession of the ld. A.R the Ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed as not pressed. Per contra, the ld. departmental representa…

LATIF EBRAHIM PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7097/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mr. Latif Ebrahim Patel Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1) बिधम/ 202, 3, Sarkar Tower, Mumbai Mazagaon, Vs. Mumbai-400010 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Agqpp1237N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…to be well placed and squarely covers the issue under consideration before us. We further find that a similar view had also been arrived at by a „Third member‟ decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. Asst. CIT [2011] 10 taxmann.com 206/45 SOT 231 (Guj) (TM) as well as by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610/143 ITD 686 (Lucknow- Trib). Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts of the case read in light of the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the A.O in respect of the cash de…