1. ITO v. Triveni Farma, 35 TW 64 (Jaipur Bench) 2. Mukesh K Shah vs. ITO

92 TTJ 1060Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#25893 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 13 Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 145

Judgments citing 1. ITO v. Triveni Farma, 35 TW 64 (Jaipur Bench) 2. Mukesh K Shah vs. ITO

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…ct and by making general observations has made the disallowance. It is therefore prayed that the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by ld. AO deserves to be deleted and is being prayed accordingly. In this regard reliance is placed on the following case law: 92 TTJ 1060 MUKESH K. SHAH VS. ITO (MUMBAI) Depreciation – Allowability – Disallowance for personal use of car – Car used for business – Depreciation being a statutory allowance, cannot be restricted on the basis of the volume of business use and volume of personal use – Therefore, depreciation on car cannot be disallowed on the ground of personal use of car…

Walker Chandiok & Co., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 97/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 40

…1/6th of interest on vehicle loan. It was submitted that since the vehicle was used for the purpose of business, the interest on loan on such vehicles should be allowed in view of the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Mukesh K. Shah vs. STO (2005) 92 TTJ 1060. 12. In respect of ground No. 9, the ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any specific finding as to which of the expenditure was incurred for the personal use of the partners. He has only drawn inference that some of the business development expenses are personal in nature. She also referred to tax audit report in Form No…

Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 140/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR

Section 145(3)Section 54B

…83/- 0.00002% Depreciation on car and motorcycle 64,158/- 0.00002% Travelling expenses 27,852/- 0.00001% The ld. AR of the assessee to this effect relied on following case laws:- 1. ITO vs. Triveni Farma, 35 TW 64 (Jaipur Bench) 2. Mukesh K Shah vs. ITO, 92 TTJ 1060 (Mumbai Bench) 10 Shri Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka vs. ITO, Ward- 2 , Jhunjhunu . 3. S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT , 288 ITR 1 (SC) 4. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT , 124 ITR 1 (SC) 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record…